RE: Small comment for <draft-schryver-pppext-iana-01.txt>

["Michelle S. Cotton" <cotton@icann.org>]

I think it is OK - I just wanted to make sure I 
understood it correctly.
 
Thanks,

Michelle


-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Thomas Narten
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:06 AM
To: Michelle S. Cotton
Cc: iesg@ietf.org; iana@iana.org
Subject: Re: Small comment for <draft-schryver-pppext-iana-01.txt> 


Hi Michelle.

> For <draft-schryver-pppext-iana-01.txt>, the
> IANA Considerations say the following:

> IETF Consensus, usually through the Point-to-Point Protocol
>    Extensions (pppext) working group, is required for assigning new
>    values in the following address spaces:

> "usually through" the pppext WG, seems vague.  Does this 
> mean that it has to be through an approved document, but 
> in most all cases it will be a pppext WG document?

I interpret the text as saying "IETF Consensus" per 2434, and that if
the Pppext WG still exists, it would be consulted. I.e, there is
definitely a rewquirement that there be an ID that gets published as
an RFC.

If the above is not clear enough about that, we can update the text.

Thomas