Closed petithug closed 11 years ago
Do we really needs this because this will mean IANA need to re-review / update ? Still thinking about this one
Well, if we fix the other issue (reserved vs unused in 14.8), then IANA will have to review again anyway.
We are arguably short on a linkage between the "Overlay Link Type" registry and OverlayLinkType.
Currently, we have:
overlay_link corresponds to the ICE transport production, Overlay Link protocols used with No-ICE MUST specify "No-ICE" in their description. Future overlay link values can be added by defining new OverlayLinkType values in the IANA registry in Section 14.10. Future extensions to the encapsulation or framing that provide for backward compatibility with that specified by a previously defined OverlayLinkType values MUST use that previous value. OverlayLinkType protocols are defined in Section 6.6 A single AttachReqAns MUST NOT include both candidates whose OverlayLinkType protocols use ICE (the default) and candidates that specify "No-ICE".
and
14.10. Overlay Link Types
IANA SHALL create a "RELOAD Overlay Link Registry". For more information on the link types defined here, see Section 6.6. New entries SHALL be defined via RFC 5226 Standards Action. This registry SHALL be initially populated with the following values:
Perhaps a non-prescriptive reference in 14.10 that points back to "overlay_link" would do what we need without griefing IANA?
march's right - I just changed it
On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin notifications@github.com wrote:
Well, if we fix the other issue (reserved vs unused in 14.8), then IANA will have to review again anyway.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
The text in 14.10 is missing "Entries in this registry are 8 bit integers as described in section 6.5.1.1".