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

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Sat, 14 March 2020 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
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 7F6003A151D for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 06:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 8g7CrZft-pGQ for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 06:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 774FB3A151C for <babel@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 06:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 02EDcPFF024709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +0100
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id 02EDcPE9002340; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +0100
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D06D103899; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id PSa7YFeoE44k; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEAEB103894; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:23 +0100
Message-ID: <87tv2rdpkg.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Cc: theophile.bastian@ens.fr, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEH+QP=SAwBr_xnR4PkZfPOJtu_87-kCFMsQUOancirx8Q@mail.gmail.com>
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>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5E6CDE51.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5E6CDE51.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E6CDE51.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E6CDE51.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5E6CDE51.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5E6CDE51.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/m-TMYTMpkTWX1LaUqGmef4JEQSw>
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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 13:38:33 -0000

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 |
             +----+-------------------------+---------------+

What we're suggesting is to add the following entries to that table:

    4-223 -- Unassigned
    224-254 -- Reserved for Experimental Use
    255 -- Unassigned

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.

-- Juliusz