Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juliusz,

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 9:38 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Donald,
>
> > We could  have use the early allocation procedures in RFC 7120 to allocate AE
> > codepoints except that rfc6126bis does not set up an IANA registry to those
> > codepoints.
>
> Yes it does.  Please see Section 5 of rfc6126bis:
>
>    IANA is instructed to create a registry called "Babel Address
>    Encodings".  The allocation policy for this registry is Specification
>    Required.  The values in this registry are as follows:
>
>              +----+-------------------------+---------------+
>              | AE | Name                    | Reference     |
>              +----+-------------------------+---------------+
>              | 0  | Wildcard address        | this document |
>              |    |                         |               |
>              | 1  | IPv4 address            | this document |
>              |    |                         |               |
>              | 2  | IPv6 address            | this document |
>              |    |                         |               |
>              | 3  | Link-local IPv6 address | this document |
>              +----+-------------------------+---------------+

Sorry, I was confused. The rfc6126bis draft takes effect on being move
to the RFC Editor by the managing AD, Martin Vigoureux in this case,
which certifies that it has been approved by the IESG. At that point,
the AE registry would be added to the IANA Babel web page.

> What we're suggesting is to add the following entries to that table:
>
>     4-223 -- Unassigned
>     224-254 -- Reserved for Experimental Use
>     255 -- Unassigned

So, looking t the proposed AE registry in rfc6126bis, I'm surprised it
got through without some reviewer at some level (I missed this also)
complaining that it has no explicit "reserved" value (should probably
be 255) and didn't have a "4-255 unassigned" line although adding such
an unassigned line is the sort of thing commonly done by IANA and the
RFC Editor after draft approval as it is implied by the draft anyway.

> What I'm asking is -- should we do it now, in the next revision of the
> draft, or should we merely establish WG consensus now, with a view to
> amending the IANA registry after the RFC is published.

I think that as this point we should not make changes in rfc6126bis
that are not needed to get it through the IESG. Just put the revised
registry in the Babel IPv4 over IPv6 draft and for now just use AE=4
if an AE value is needed

Note that, since the AE value assignment criteria is Specification
Required, if rfc6126bis were through the IESG and the IANA Babel AE
registry existed, then as soon as there was a complete Babel IPv4 over
IPv6 draft, even a personal draft before WG adoption, an AE value
could be assigned based on that IPv4 over IPv6 draft as the
specification. (There is a slight complication that an expert
determination that the specification is adequate for interoperability
is needed for Specification Required which might cause a little
delay.)

> -- Juliusz

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 33896 USA
 [e-mail]