Instructions for Seamoby and Experimental Mobility Protocol IANA Allocations
RFC 4065

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-23)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART.

Comment worth pulling into ballot:

5.2 - Given that the registry is starting with 8 values, and this is
just from IEEE 802, I'm wondering if one byte (255 values) leaves
enough headroom for the next 20 years. I guess it's BARELY big enough.
Yeah, Seamoby is Experimental, but what if the experiment works?

But John Loughney responded (on the gen-art list):

Strong guidence from the AD & Thomas Narten suggested that this space
be left small intentially to avoid potential over extension.  However,
if the experiment works, then the document will be reved as proposed
standard with this fixed, if needed.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-18)
No email
send info
It might be helpful if section 12 (IANA Considerations) spelled out the TBD actions that are sprinkled throughout the document instead of just saying that "This entire document is about IANA considerations".  It's easy to miss an action given the way the document is currently written.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-24)
No email
send info
>    2.0    Common IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations 
>       
>      IANA SHALL assign SCTP port number TBD1 for use by experimental mobility 
>      protocols such as Seamoby. See Section 5.2.1 of [CARD] for a description of 

resusing the port  for multiple applications seems not so good. Why
not just assign a port number for CARD and be done with it?

>      Specification Required and IESG Review as defined in RFC 2434. 
>       

IESG Review is not defined in 2434...

(Alex Zinin) No Objection