IANA Registries for the Remote Direct Data Placement (RDDP) Protocols
RFC 6580

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2012-01-04)
No email
send info
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) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(David Harrington) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2012-01-03 for -)
No email
send info
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.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection