Re: Consensus Call on adopting draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00

[Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>]

I am for adopting this draft as WG document.

It says that RH types should be allocated through "IETF Review" or "IESG
 Approval" - these methods seem to me the most appropriated because
offer the widest possible review through IETF - IESG and WG.  This is
needed knowing that RH has large importance in the sequence of headers.

The other methods are "Private Use", "Experimental Use", "Hierararchical
Allocation", "FCFS", "Expert Review", "Spec Req'd", "RFC Req'd",
"Standards Action" (rfc5226).  The first four seem not adapted for such
an important header while the latter three seem too much work for such
simple action as properly reserving a number.

Alex

Brian Haberman a écrit :
> All, I would like to gauge the WG's opinion on adopting 
> draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00 as a 6MAN WG document.  All 
> comments, for or against, should be sent to the mailing list or the 
> chairs by September 15th, 2009.
>
> Regards, Brian 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6 at ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------