A Registry for PIM Message Types
RFC 6166
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
Section 3.2., paragraph 1: > Assignment of new message types is done according to the "IETF > Review" model, see [RFC5226]. It'd be good to add "or IESG Approval" here - there are sometimes cases where that shortcut is needed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
I can't remember if there is a precedent for registry documents achieving PS. The decision to reserve the value 15 to support extensibility might be justification, but that seems relatively weak. So, I support discussing Robert's issue, but do not have a particularly strong position either way. If anyone can point out precedent justifying going PS that would be enough for me...