Skip to main content

IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers
RFC 6328

Yes

(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Adrian Farrel)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)

Abstain


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

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-01-07)
First note that the NLPID was defined before there was an IETF. This is why none of the space was assigned for IETF use. 

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the reason that we need IANA to assign NLPIDs is that the ISO OSI effort is no longer functionally able to do this. If this is right, then I think that we might as well explicitly say so in the document. Also, if I have this right, then I don't see why we couldn't assign any unused codes which were originally assigned to ISO (leaving the ITU codes for ITU use).

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-01-06)
I support Adrian's discuss.

A few nits:

section 2, paragraph 2.  

First sentence - isn't the important point that NLPIDs are used in a number of *IETF* protocols?
The second sentence doesn't quite parse; it is missing the NLPID.  Perhaps appending
"all make use of NLPIDs" would complete the thought?

Section 3 "or are otherwise of interest" seems a bit vague.  Perhaps "or are identified
by the IETF liaison to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6" would capture the idea more clearly.

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Abstain

Abstain (2010-01-10)
While this is a fine document in all other respects, I am concerned by the fact that IETF doesn't seem to have authority to allocate NLPIDs, as the registry is controlled by ISO/ITU-T.