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

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E03F3A0A4D for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 y-t5PAZU9Kv8 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 07:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x129.google.com (mail-il1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (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 132033A0A2E for <babel@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x129.google.com with SMTP id z3so27326453ilh.3 for <babel@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Aug 2020 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mPcbMQ3LPSlx3tVyxX+mZQLKLLM4kWARhbBqLWuwItg=; b=igx2WpQwV2CfAH6hElUb/nnjTx40oFZFvuw1LkxEjrJuAfOcQBMYKF43WEfhHSa3Kq ZYFT/3gVRqVw3/O8E62vDcri/mdkBvw8TQpoA7PbnMoystb68Nf3oupKicerOjIdP9qb V22JuGXwJ/rIO+BAAUJ24FYiEu3w3fZ3PfeNMdx0+O4J3DCjz7IDlmBGw5Htj/2FBd2e vL8TxZ/PYz1X9iA1B1lt7kx1xvOlmldgaA88UK49UH8lgFyMd0EZjBOxOWrj8rFEYhoF FwWzSAEJDk2YTSgD5L0wonuwtqmy9Ct4yHgYvuISu/vby4cyfzPyD4tCJT1uCVoA9Njx cicA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=mPcbMQ3LPSlx3tVyxX+mZQLKLLM4kWARhbBqLWuwItg=; b=St+SbQ2/Txb3mMwYY5COukqdl83IJqQW0jgw5gyYzf2XlmxaDUyiVSUDrc/wNMzTJK ctbEyDTFWnGg/BBiiMP6Pf+Kll4Bo3TGg+WwftggNFiiZCNwV46MDEUT7fjnA4XnNpMt h9sluXS4MbN95wnd4884Sr+oEfOvSdCsvX1EFF0+TviptGBtfTFqKFr3xaRTC/Ruvqgl fZlh5TadYCHqQRnkHjEEWrFwX00c/dv24dl8ufJ0zsrlLET8Bn4p6YNClByRGwT7792b mxZYsqRBU5xOm1sJFPG6KhNeO6T3LFHeWg6AQdvza2sUADP0VdpAL0BmIKbJBlkHXDon qbQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+6LNympEaYYnHIOXSNdDfE0GID9pGr0qKbSAuJIqvNZOLuDtO u1rFtWbEJa8ul8k05NTQRQ1iUJEGCzXOyzK6/TyPrg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy982iU9X9AZzAu5/FFOL0sgqSNxyOd8J5ulvVMmm3IMga4dGSpM+qxHrCkboXFrsBtsKnGEI4HcC8UTyJ72ng=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:f07:: with SMTP id x7mr4533166ilj.40.1596638278860; Wed, 05 Aug 2020 07:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> <910042DE-5141-487D-9A04-6701E4F36296@iki.fi> <CAA93jw4J+PCwQNyZWa19cNX6otJUOTxiHRtx5ViCYjrnR4STRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEH+QP=SAwBr_xnR4PkZfPOJtu_87-kCFMsQUOancirx8Q@mail.gmail.com> <87tv2rdpkg.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAF4+nEHuhobV78-On81crR40MDZVmTde1EyE17mSwd-TkHYjCw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEHuhobV78-On81crR40MDZVmTde1EyE17mSwd-TkHYjCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 10:37:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGeh+tPEtKKf9vghJtXqQwuwj0cVLUogpKXKZMfmpswHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/decj3A50rchT2sPEz1DXwWJwFXI>
Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 14:38:03 -0000

Hi,

There were no objections to changing the IANA Considerations for AE
values to include an Experimental range as discussed a while ago.

We have consulted with the Area Director for Babel and we plan to go
ahead and make this change along with designating the value 255 as
"Reserved".  Because of the turnover in IESG members, it is also
planned to schedule the draft for another IESG telechat to get more
Area Director positions on the draft. So you will probably see some
Comments or the like from them come by in a while.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Juliusz,
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 9:38 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> 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   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 33896 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com