[dhcwg] Re: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection o n draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-09: (with COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Thu, 01 May 2025 13:46:36 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.dhc
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Amanda Baber <[email protected]> wrote:
    > For what it’s worth, we don’t have a default set of status field
    > entries to recommend, although this seems like a potentially useful
    > thing to do. 8126bis is asking whether we should 1) define common
    > status field entries that are already in use (“current,” the
    > similar-sounding “active,” “provisional,” etc.) and 2) add to the very
    > brief definitions we already have (“deprecated” and “obsolete”).

Bernie suggested we just go for creating the new status field, so I've done a
pull request: https://github.com/dhcwg/rfc8415bis/pull/54/files

Please let us know if the text works for IANA.
Note last instruction: please add status to all the registries.

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 515 B)