 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill,
My preference would be to rename: Updated IANA Allocation Guidelines for PPP documents And rigorously walk through every PPP-related RFC, looking for missing or inconsistent IANA information.
Are you volunteering? :-) I'm asking serioulsy, because I think we should do a walkthrough and find out what other missing information there might be.
.
Should BAP be the only one missing its allocations, then maybe just updateIANA without bothering to write yet another RFC....
I know this RFC is a borderline case in terms of real-world usefulness. I do believe, however, that the registries need to be kept up to date and correct even for older protocols. And my personal preference is to issue significant registry updates only through RFCs. Most of the effort in writing this draft has gone into getting the various registries correct (whether they should or should not contain 0 - vendor specific, for instance. It took a while for me and James to get that right. This needs to be done anyway, and I guess I'm still hoping that the remaining IETF publication process for simple RFCs is a very efficient one :-) Or at least it has been for some of the past RFCs that we have written on similar IANA updates.
Jari