Subject: [mpls] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 08:05:13 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-07: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At first I was puzzled by the move from Specification Required to RFC Required,
until I looked in RFC 8209 at this:

   Values from "Specification Required" ranges MUST be registered with
   IANA.  The request MUST be made via an RFC that describes the format
   and procedures for using the code point; the actual assignment is
   made during the IANA actions for the RFC.

In other words, it's really always been RFC Required, but specified in an odd
way and with a designated expert looking at it.

So, yes, this is a useful cleanup and clarification, and thanks for doing this.
 And, as you have in the Acknowledgments, thanks to Michelle for working with
you to make sure this came out right.