Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Review Period Reminder

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:49:16 +0300

James,

A few smalll comments on this draft:

http://www.geocities.com/kempf42/draft-ietf-seamoby-iana-00.txt

1) Status of this memo section needs to be updated with new boilerplate.
2) Abstract margins need fixing.
3) Needs IPR text
4) Is this a protocol document or a information document? If it is
   info, then probably keywords (MUST; SHOULD; MAY, etc) shouldn't
   be used.
5) Section 5.2 - are these all of the possible L2

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:31:05 -0700

John,

>1) Status of this memo section needs to be updated with new boilerplate.

OK. Where is this?

> 2) Abstract margins need fixing.

OK.

> 3) Needs IPR text

My understanding is that IPR text isn't needed unless there are IPR
considerations. As this document is purely instructions to IANA, there
aren't.

>   info, then probably keywords (MUST; SHOULD; MAY, etc) shouldn't

I'll ask Allison. I've heard two stories on this, one that an informational
or experimental document may have such normative text and others that it
shouldn't. The doc is really just informational.

> 5) Section 5.2 - are these all of the possible L2

No, there are possibly more, which is why the registry is being established.
For example, 802.16 might be a possibility in the future. And there might be
others in the future. Was there something you thing needed changing here?

            jak

---

From: "Charles E.Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:17:41 -0700

Hello folks,

> shouldn't. The doc is really just informational.

I was under the very strong impression that the document was
intended for publication as Experimental, and in that case
it seems clear that the 2119 keywords SHOULD be used.

>      The Seamoby Working Group requests that IANA maintain allocations for the 
>      port number and ICMP message type number for a minimum of 3 years after 
>      which the allocations SHOULD be released, unless the Seamoby protocols
>      are advanced in some form to Proposed Standard. 

Is it a new policy that IANA would deallocate such assigned
numbers?

I'll try to make further comments before Thursday, but
I guess only small comments are requested.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 10:42:43 -0700

Hi Charlie,

> it seems clear that the 2119 keywords SHOULD be used.

Well, I tend to agree, but I just want to confirm it with Allison.

> Is it a new policy that IANA would deallocate such assigned

Ted Hardie and Thomas Narten have a Discuss on CARD regarding the assignment
of permanent IANA resources (port numbers and ICMP types) to a protocol that
is experimental and may never get much market uptake. Using SCTP partially
addresses the comment (since SCTP ports are not as resource constrained and
we can utilize the PPIs to multiplex a single port for both protocols).
Having IANA maintain the allocations for a limited period of time addresses
the comment even further. I don't know if this has been done before, but I
passed the IANA draft by Allison and she seemed to think it was OK.

BTW, FMIP is considered to be in the same boat, according to my
conversations with Ted and Thomas about this, so those of us who are
involved in mipshop might want to be thinking about how to address this
problem there as well.

> I guess only small comments are requested.

Comments about replacement of text, including the suggested replacement, are
what is requested and indeed welcome.

            jak