Re: Review Period Reminder

Hi Charlie,

> > 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.
>
> 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.
>

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

> >      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?
>

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

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


            jak