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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Chairs,
 
Not sure whether this fell through a crack as well.
 
I have to say that I *really* hate it when the early request is "Please give us
these numbers because we are already shipping". Can we all please to try to get
to this a little sooner so that the request can be "Please give us some numbers
because we are moving from testing to shipping very soon."
 
>From a process point of view, the text below looks adequate to me. The chairs
need to:
- check that this is what is in the I-D and that they think it is clear
- decide that the draft is sufficiently stable and likely to be 
  developed based on these code points.
- issue the request to IANA
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
 
From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
Sent: 12 August 2014 15:10
To: Lou Berger; DEBORAH BRUNGARD
Cc: CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Request for early IANA Allocation for
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09
 
Hi Lou, Deborah,
 
Can you please advise next steps for this request ?
 
Thank you for your guidance.
 
Regards,
Rakesh
 
 
From: Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 24 July, 2014 6:54 PM
To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>, DEBORAH BRUNGARD <[e-mail]>
Cc: CCAMP <[e-mail]>
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-0
9#section-6>
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