Re: [CCAMP] Request for early IANA Allocation for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09

"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com> Tue, 12 August 2014 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDB61A020B for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 TZiT8j4beDcx for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DA981A08DE for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7689; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407852592; x=1409062192; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=iMKHHHWH6pJBAbclgVfLBKNYno58pBZVMXoWS8OY+yw=; b=Rk+EfS2RK1swTDRZ/tBTUqUic2jIpFwEPFamkcNo+Jr2Rga2DuZ/u4x6 mI49jK47if1YYQ14HvhBk1KmEMJ3uQNZMOiMnktwZ/PBVqvL7m4O2cCrO WS90pBf4y5p4Am2Wmzew3pfewQ6FGVp7Ray42K6x2YBMoH6EdrLn40Rjm w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEFAJAf6lOtJA2H/2dsb2JhbABagkdGUlcEy1WBZYdGAYERFneEAwECBHkSAQgOAwMBAig5FAkIAgQBDQUJiDkNxQkXjzsRB4RMBY8KghOEJoZ2gVeTJ4IWgUZsAYFH
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,849,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="68563837"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2014 14:09:51 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7CE9pJH012618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:09:51 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.136]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:09:51 -0500
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, DEBORAH BRUNGARD <db3546@att.com>
Thread-Topic: Request for early IANA Allocation for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09
Thread-Index: AQHPp5JGuhGawEct/EqR99XDeYGQxJvNL8UA
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:09:50 +0000
Message-ID: <D00F982F.36485%rgandhi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFF706F9.342E2%rgandhi@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
x-originating-ip: [161.44.213.29]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D00F982F36485rgandhiciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/KI-PcobFXHEqIPSRsth48klXVYo
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Request for early IANA Allocation for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:10:38 -0000

Hi Lou, Deborah,

Can you please advise next steps for this request ?

Thank you for your guidance.

Regards,
Rakesh


From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi@cisco.com<mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>>
Date: Thursday, 24 July, 2014 6:54 PM
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>>, DEBORAH BRUNGARD <db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>>
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: Request for early IANA Allocation for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09

Hi CCAMP WG Chairs,

Following the procedure for Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points defined in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120, on behalf of the authors of the WG draft "RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs",  draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09, we are requesting to CCAMP WG chairs the early allocation of the following values:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09#section-6

6.1. Association Types

   New Association Types for ASSOCIATION and Extended ASSOCIATION Objects are defined in this document as follows:

   Value      Type
   -----      -----
   4 (TBD)    Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP (D)
   5 (TBD)    Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP (A)

   IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters).  "Association Type" subregistry is included in this registry, which will be extended and updated by this document.

6.2.  REVERSE_LSP Object
   A new class type for RSVP REVERSE_LSP Object has been requested in the 11bbbbbb range (TBD) with the following definition:

   Class Types or C-types (TBD), Value (TBD): REVERSE_LSP Object

   IANA maintains the "RSVP Parameters" registry (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml). Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types subregistry is included in this registry, which will be extended and updated by this document.

The main reason for this request is that this draft has been implemented in a shipping product (using values from the draft and reserved range) but this can now lead to interoperability issues and we like to make sure we are using standard values before software is largely deployed in networks and avoid interoperability issues.


Thank you,
Rakesh and co-authors