Fw: [IANA #160366] RFC3877 - Matrix update
"Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]> Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:12:44 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.disman |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <005f01ca3ba7$e7232da0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> |
Hi - Forwarded for your information. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:25 AM Subject: RE: [IANA #160366] RFC3877 - Matrix update Hi Pearl, See in-line. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pearl Liang via RT [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:31 PM > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Subject: [IANA #160366] RFC3877 - Matrix update > > Hi, Dan, > > Can you also help in answering the questions for the IANA ITU > Alarm TC MIB registry? > > Thank you, > ~pl > > > On Fri Jul 31 20:29:26 2009, pearl.liang wrote: > > Hello Dan, > > > > Here is another one for you :) > > > > > RELATED REGISTRY: IANA Maintained MIBs - IANA ITU Alarm TC MIB > > > > > > URL: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaitualarmtc-mib > > > > > > REVIEWER COMMENTS: RFC 3877 Section 5.2 "IANA Considerations" > > > provides registration procedures for the registry "IANA > Maintained > > > MIBs - IANA ITU Alarm TC MIB" but numbers.html shows (?). > > > > > > PROPOSED ACTIONS: Reg. procedures are also listed in > registry. Add > > > to Matrix. > > > > Two questions: > > 1. What would the registration procedures be for the ITU > Alarm TC MIB? Section 5.2 seems to be pretty clear: To aid IANA in the administration of probable cause names and values, the OPS Area Director will appoint one or more experts to help review requests. > > > > 2. Review the IC section of this RFC, > > > > "IANAItuProbableCause value of 0 is reserved for special > purposes and > > MUST NOT be assigned. Values of IANAItuProbableCause in the > range 1 to > > 1023 are reserved for causes that correspond to ITU-T > probable cause. > > All other requests for new causes will be handled on a first-come > > basis, with 1025." > > > > Is the value 1024 missing from the definition? It's allocated for value other(1024) which is mentioned both in the RFC and on the Web page. > > > > Thank you for your help. > > > > Regards, > > > > Pearl Liang > > IANA > > > >