IANA Registries for the Remote Direct Data Placement (RDDP) Protocols
RFC 6580
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(David Harrington; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
I agree with Pete that the RFC 2119 language is in general unnecessary. In some of the registries, providing an experimental value for testing and development purposes would be useful, IMHO. Look at RFC 5872 Sections 2.1 and 3 for an example and RFC 3692 for general guidance. For instance, I would reserve one RDMAP operation code value (0xF) as an experimental value. And 0xFFFF for SCTP Function Codes for DDP Session Control. But whether you want to make such a reservation depends of course entirely on your understanding of the needs of the RDDP community and how the protocols might evolve.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
I think the 2119 language is unnecessary and ought to be removed. Some of it belongs with the protocol that defines the field. Some of it is giving instructions to IANA about their processing, which seems an inappropriate use of 2119.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection