Subject: [GROW] Chairs to petition IANA for a codepoint for GEO-MRT

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:21:24 -0400

(from Jeff Haas)
The chairs need to petition IANA sooner rather than later to reserve a
table type number for the geo type in the mrt type field.

-chris

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:40:42 +0000

> table type number for the geo type in the mrt type field.

Clarification:
I am recommending that the registry required for the GROW MRT draft be
requested to be implemented pre-RFC for purposes of registering new code
points.  The Geo-MRT application requires one.  My former employer also has
need of one.

-- Jeff

---

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:39:14 -0700

> table type number for the geo type in the mrt type field.

I thought Jeff was saying that the registries haven't been set up yet and should be.  IANA would normally do this when you move the MRT draft to RFC but it might be worth doing sooner.  The MRT draft sez:

6.  IANA Considerations

   This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the MRT
   specification, in accordance with BCP 26, RFC 5226 [RFC5226].

   There are two name spaces in MRT that require registration: Type
   Codes and Subtype Codes.

 [...etc...]

By the way Terry asked what kind of type code to ask for.  The MRT draft sez:

6.1.  Type Codes

   Type Codes have a range from 0 to 65535, of which 1-64 have been
   allocated.  New Type Codes MUST be allocated starting at 65.  Type
   Codes 65 - 511 are to be assigned by IETF Review.  Type Codes 512 -
   2047 are assigned based on Specification Required.  Type Codes 2048 -
   64511 are available on a First Come First Served policy.  Type Codes
   64512 - 65534 are available for Experimental Use. The Type Code
   Values of 0 and 65535 are reserved.

I can't quite imagine why you'd bother with the hoop-jumping required by IETF Review.  If I were you, I'd probably just use an FCFS code point.  Numbers is numbers after all, they all work the same.

--John

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:45:18 -0700

On 29/07/10 11:39 PM, "John Scudder" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I can't quite imagine why you'd bother with the hoop-jumping required by IETF
> Review.  If I were you, I'd probably just use an FCFS code point.  Numbers is
> numbers after all, they all work the same.

That is what I was heading for :-)

But wanted to give the WG an option of doing ietf review if so desired.

Moving from my current code of using 65 to a FCFS is trivial.

Happy to go there as soon as the IANA registry is open.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:46:47 -0400

thanks, for the clarification(s).

-chris
(the point of the note was actually to get this, and a reminder to
chair-folk... so, crowd-sourcing works!)