[Anima] PEN v domain name [GRASP open issues confirmation]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 23 November 2015 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F261B32C3 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:34:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.7
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Vc3d1fIPKgh for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21A151B32C8 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pabfh17 with SMTP id fh17so206342238pab.0 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:34:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6qJDLO93xtl2C9YJJDz3IELOr+JcnhB5/jWhNEAjGLM=; b=wMIo+duHmQMKNwoENR+zFBWpqV3nPJTsVvaqz70JvBUd01r+QfUuXMoljzU1isL0HD 4oWXvUKtGimVIRPp71y77+vDARCouHbOcjLsjy3p/dwl3DO0/GtqZrYWA66y2wh5IU6C TTISzGPbZA3X42iWZ6f+8P4u9uWweMWvSgvEK5K4nqPBSQjsYXFZyCi1VT/My1YXwmpk CauPoSW+05seX60G/VTVOt2QoFxicDVylUoPDt8pOAbppnC4eZtMayHrZFSUqqzDGmFK MTwZ1zzYEiV0LdhfJhK+SK0MPt1yC0MCzkB71CI7XHClM8m500Rd8n6fS7ePtYNWwq7g E/0g==
X-Received: by 10.68.113.194 with SMTP id ja2mr38143223pbb.52.1448307290776; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:34:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.25] (217.24.255.123.static.snap.net.nz. [123.255.24.217]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cm2sm3564812pbb.77.2015.11.23.11.34.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:34:48 -0800 (PST)
To: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C234BA35@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <56536A58.2030005@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:34:48 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C234BA35@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/q5VFwVdVsmKg_Bu1sKzbo4ekpdI>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: [Anima] PEN v domain name [GRASP open issues confirmation]
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:34:52 -0000

>> o2) Private Enterprise Number(PEN) is used to distinguish vendor options. Would a domain name be better?
>> Consensus: PEN might not make sense for autonomic nodes; domain name might be better.

The point here is that some GRASP objectives will be standardised and their
names will be in an IANA registry; they don't need either a PEN or a domain name.

Other objectives will be non-standardised; we call them "vendor" options but of
course they could be private in any way, open-source, or whatever. However, to
make them unique, they need some tag that is guaranteed to be unique, which means
we need to pick something that is registered somewhere. The two obvious choices
are PEN numbers or domain names.

PEN numbers (draft-liang-iana-pen) are fixed length (32 bit) integers introduced
for SNMP (but with no dependency on SNMP), allocated FCFS at no cost. This morning,
there are 46768 of them allocated.

Domain names are variable length strings. They cost money to obtain and maintain.
They can vanish or be re-assigned.

>From a GRASP efficiency point of view, I think that 32 bit integers are marginally
better.

Regards
   Brian