IANA Considerations for Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Network Identifiers and Universal Address Formats
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-06
Yes
Lars Eggert
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
Yes
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-17)
Unknown
I don't understand why this document has both registered netids and constants. That seems redundant to me.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-17)
Unknown
In sections 4.1 and 4.2, the registrant provides a value of TBD1 in the registration request, and IANA substitutes the assigned value for TBD1. This is very clear but isn't quite right if a single document requests multiple registrations. In that case, the provided values would also include TBD2, ..., TBDx. To be honest, I'm not sure if any readers would actually be confused and I can't think of a better way to write the text myself. If an obvious solution comes to the author, that would be great. Otherwise, there is probably no harm in proceeding as is.