A Registry for PIM Message Types
RFC 6166

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-15)
No email
send info
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.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-16)
No email
send info
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...

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection