Skip to main content

A Registry for PIM Message Types
RFC 6166

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ron Bonica)

No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2011-02-15)
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

Yes ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-02-16)
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...