Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-00.txt> (IANA Registries for the RDDP (Remote Direct Data Placement) Protocols) to Proposed Standard

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:01:46 -0800

At 14:41 05-12-2011, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the STORage Maintenance WG (storm)
>to consider the following document:
>- 'IANA Registries for the RDDP (Remote Direct Data Placement) Protocols'
>   <draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-12-19. Exceptionally, comments may be

The intended status is odd if the following requirement has to be tested:

   "IANA MUST NOT add an entry to this registry with an Error Code
    for the same Error Type"

 From the PROTO write-up:

   "The IANA Considerations section exists and states that no
    IANA actions"

And from Section 3 of the draft:

   "This memo creates the following RDDP registries for IANA to manage:

      o RDMAP Errors (Section 3.1)
      o DDP Errors (Section 3.2)
      o MPA Errors (Section 3.3)
      o RDMAP Message Operation Codes (Section 3.4)
      o SCTP Function Codes for DDP Stream Session Control (Section 3.5)"

 From Section 3.1:

   "An IESG-approved standards-track specification"

Are there standard-track specifications which do not require IESG approval?

Regards,
-sm