FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>

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

Bob is pushing this through it seems. Shall we ask him to
hold it for a while?

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden@ISI.EDU]
Sent: maandag 27 januari 2003 23:25
To: braden@ISI.EDU; bwijnen@lucent.com; iana@iana.org;
BRaja@tellium.com; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; zwlin@lucent.com;
osama@nortelnetworks.com
Cc: sob@harvard.edu
Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>


  *> 
  *> Just another note,
  *> 
  *> Does this mean then that the "GMPLS" extensions would also have that as prefix? What about some of the other extensions, e.g., the "227" class-num that was recently requested as well?

Zhi,

If the prefix is for non-IETF standards body, GMPLS is being done within the
IETF, I believe, so no prefixing would be required for it.

  *> 
  *> Another example is the private assignment to individuals, specifically "[Baker]" and "SBM"...Would these also be prefixed?
  *> 

The SBM objects are already prefixed, in fact.  The Baker extension was
passed through the RSVP WG.

  *> I just don't want to have this raise more questions than it tried to answer...especially since the codepoints would have the reference next to them, and as such folks who would consider using these would (I hope) first look up the reference to make sure they understand what they are supposed to mean...

Experience shows that redundant information is never a bad idea in these
registrations.

Bob Braden

  *> 
  *> Thanks
  *> Zhi