IANA Assignment of DSCP Pool 3 (xxxx01) Values to require Publication of a Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFC
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry-08

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Spencer Dawkins Yes

Mirja K├╝hlewind Yes

Ignas Bagdonas No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Ben Campbell No Objection

Comment (2018-06-06 for -06)
- The use of 2119/8174 keywords seem unneeded for this document. As far as I can tell, there's just a MAY that talks about IANA behavior.

- Please define "bleaching".

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2018-06-01 for -06)
The only question this raises for me is whether there are widespread experimental uses of Pool 3 codepoints. If so, will the people using those will be aware of this change, or is the likely impact of collisions not viewed as terribly problematic, or both?

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2018-06-06 for -06)
Is there a good reference already for the security considerations of
bleaching the TOS field?  That's not really the main point of this
document, so I don't want to make you write something from scratch,
but since we mention the issue in passing it might be nice to have
a reference if one exists.

Section 3

   The new registry contents are shown in Figure 2.

nit: Figure 2 does not show the registry *contents*, but rather the
assignment policies.

Section 5

   The Registration Procedure for use of Pool 3 is "Standards Action"
   [RFC8126].  IANA is expected to normally make assignments from Pool
   1, until this Pool is exhausted, but MAY make assignments from Pool 3
   where the format of the codepoint has properties that are needed for
   a specific PHB. The required characteristics for choosing the DSCP
   value MUST be explained in the IANA considerations of the document
   that requests any assignment from Pool 3

Does/should this requirement go away when Pool 1 is completely
allocated?

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Comment (2018-06-04 for -06)
I am supporting Alissa's question.

Eric Rescorla No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Adam Roach No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Comment (2018-06-06 for -06)
Hello,

Alissa's question also came to my mind, so I support her COMMENT.

Twice in the document you give a definition to "Standards Action", but it is not strictly identical to the one of 8126. 
Citing RFC 8126 should be sufficient.