RE: draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-03.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Thomas, you have had a few interactions with Bala on this (so 
he tells me). Are you happy with his latest answer, or should 
we push some more for unique code points (which need IETF
consensus). In the latter case, I wonder.... would that mean
we need to re-issue Last Call, or can we consider this
comment/fix as a result of the IETF Last Call?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: donderdag 9 januari 2003 17:14
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-03.txt
> 
> 
> >    Proposed TLV types 0x0960 u 0x0970 as described in Sections 2.1 u
> >    2.7 above.
> 
> nit: has funny characters in it
> 
> >    UNI-specific status codes have been allocated out of the 
> Private Use
> >    space, i.e., 0x3Fxxxxxx. These do not require IANA 
> administration.
> 
> If I understand this correctly (a big if) this seems funny. "Private
> use" means something specific, and is not something that vendors/SDOs
> agree to use. 2434 sez:
> 
>       Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
>            purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to
>            prevent multiple sites from using the same value 
> in different
>            (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for IANA 
> to review
>            such assignments and assignments are not generally 
> useful for
>            interoperability.
> 
>            Examples: Site-specific options in DHCP [DHCP] have
>            significance only within a single site.  "X-foo:" header
>            lines in email messages.
> 
> So the question is, should private use really be used here or should a
> globally unique value be assigned.
> 
> Also, I assume IANA has reviewed this and understands what it 
> needs to do?
> 
> Thomas
>