Re: small draft to update iana rules in PPP BAP/BACP

Bill,

> My preference would be to rename:
>
> Updated IANA Allocation Guidelines for PPP documents
>
> And rigorously walk through every PPP-related RFC, looking for missing
> or inconsistent IANA information.

Are you volunteering? :-) I'm asking serioulsy, because I think we 
should do a walkthrough and find out what other missing information 
there might be.
.
> Should BAP be the only one missing its allocations, then maybe just 
> update
> IANA without bothering to write yet another RFC....

I know this RFC is a borderline case in terms of real-world usefulness. 
I do believe, however, that the registries need to be kept up to date 
and correct even for older protocols. And my personal preference is to 
issue significant registry updates only through RFCs. Most of the effort 
in writing this draft has gone into getting the various registries 
correct (whether they should or should not contain 0 - vendor specific, 
for instance. It took a while for me and James to get that right. This 
needs to be done anyway, and I guess I'm still hoping that the remaining 
IETF publication process for simple RFCs is a very efficient one :-) Or 
at least it has been for some of the past RFCs that we have written on 
similar IANA updates.

Jari

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext