IANA Considerations for RSVP
Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU> Wed, 22 January 2003 21:40 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:23:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200301222140.VAA00937@gra.isi.edu>
From: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:40:12 +0000
To: rsvp@ISI.EDU
Subject: IANA Considerations for RSVP
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@uu.net, kireeti@juniper.net, braden@ISI.EDU, iana@ISI.EDU, sob@harvard.edu, mankin@psg.com, bwijnen@lucent.com
[ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to regularly post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are automatically accepted. ] There is a growing unease about IANA assignments of RSVP parameters -- object numbers, CTypes, message types, and error numbers -- for new uses of RSVP. Many of these IANA requests, but not all, originate outside the IETF in other standards bodies. Many of the people from outside the IETF were not part of the RSVP working group and so did not absorb the technical rationale behind RSVP; in fact, they are sometimes barely clued into IETF procedures at all. As a sample, here is a part of a recent message from Kireeti Kompella, co-chair of the CCAMP working group: "The problem I am trying to address is that folks are changing the RSVP spec with *Informational* documents that bypass much of the checks we have. For example, the "GMPLS RSVP-TE for ASON" draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rsvpte-04.txt defines new objects for the purpose of "call and connection separation". I don't see any reason for such separation; even in the ITU (where this comes from), there is not a clear consensus that this is needed. However, this document breezed through the IETF "process". Furthermore, it is an *Informational* document. If this really was useful, and someone were to extend this, their document would have to be Informational by normative reference transitivity. The worst part of this is that the base protocols (RSVP, RSVP-TE and RSVP-TE for GMPLS) were IETF protocols -- and then this piece has been usurped by the ITU (where the standards track documents will be defined). What I would like to see is the bulk of each space (messages, objects, class types, etc) being Standards Action, with some space for FCFS and Private Use." This raises a bunch of technical and procedural questions; I will address some of the latter below. Several points should be made. 1. I volunteered several years ago to serve as the "designated expert" for RSVP registrations (RFC 2434), so every RSVP reservation request is referred to me. (Given the amount of recent aggrevation, this may not have been too wise a move for me.) 2. Just before the RSVP WG went dormant, its cochairs put together an IANA Considerations document and published it as an I-D. I believe that it went through a formal WG last call; at least, the WG was given an opporunity to comment on, or object to, it. It did not become an RFC, but it is available on the RSVP web site. (I recently moved it to a more prominent spot in www.isi.edu/rsvp/pub.html). As the designated expert, I follow the rules in that draft. 3. The IANA Considerations draft should be published as an RFC, perhaps after updating. Here are some issues that might affect this update. (A) How to handle requests for RSVP assignments for extensions developed outside IETF? Here is my suggestion: For all assignments of numbers for extensions defined in non-IETF standards bodies, the IANA should use assignment names (e.g., object names) that are prefixed with the name of the responsible standards body. For example, the "SPIFFY_SESSION" object would become "ATM_FORUM_SPIFFY_SESSION" or "ITU-T_SPIFFY_SESSION", etc., object. (B) What policies should be imposed? The document currently divides the assignment space into two subspaces, for "IETF Consensus" and "FCFS". RFC 2434 lists various other possibilities; do we need any? Precisely what do we mean by IETF consensus? Does this require a standards-track document? (We thought it did.) We assumed that non-IETF requests would necessarily go to FCFS, but is it really FCFS + expert opinion? In other words, how much oversight should we try to exert for non-IETF RSVP extensions? I have seen some highly questionable extensions. They tend to be micro-engineering, with no sense of a larger design. (C) What are the appropriate documentation requirements? Must there be an Internet Draft? An RFC? We have tended towards the RFC, but the result is less than satisfactory. These extensions are typically documented in some 373- page document published (or more often hidden) by the other standards body. The I-D/RFC that is written for registration presents only a superficial summary of the data structures to be defined, with no context of explanation, and a reference to the real 373 page document. Bob Braden Former co-chair of the RSVP WG Current designated expert for RSVP assignments by IANA ----- End Included Message -----
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Curtis Villamizar
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bala Rajagopalan
- Re: [Rsvp] Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bob Braden
- Re: [Rsvp] Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bob Braden
- Re: [Rsvp] RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bob Braden
- Re: [Rsvp] RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bob Braden
- Re: [Rsvp] RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bob Braden
- Re: [Rsvp] Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bob Braden
- Re: [Rsvp] [Fwd: Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP] Bob Braden
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Stephen Trowbridge
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Jeff Parker
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bala Rajagopalan
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP John Drake
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Scott W Brim
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Bala Rajagopalan
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Eric Gray
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Eric Gray
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Brian Hassink
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Stephen Trowbridge
- IANA Considerations for RSVP Bob Braden
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Kireeti Kompella
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP David Charlap
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP John Drake
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Yangguang Xu
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Kireeti Kompella
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Kireeti Kompella
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Kireeti Kompella
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Kireeti Kompella
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Stephen Trowbridge
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Scott W Brim
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Scott W Brim
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Scott W Brim
- [Fwd: Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP] Jonathan Lang
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Mak, L (Leen)
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP David Charlap
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Ong, Lyndon
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)
- RE: IANA Considerations for RSVP Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP David Charlap
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP David Charlap
- Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP Kireeti Kompella