[CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling

"Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com> Tue, 29 July 2014 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mhartley@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F881B2954 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zHXKnu8oEllF for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8E31A0AC9 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=914; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406660783; x=1407870383; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4syU6fpFVxGJg7cxTgm5fZmqbXYkbdeUsCU9vs5ji4E=; b=IoLjCqOWZa/75WIXjGVKzHgb/l10/weGFi4zVtS+JnYowLUzQT8WSl22 TfvbK8BVblI2YDaqe175T6pIShXMXmhEScOvGyJJDeF5vVlPjHd+xspnx nU5MfxuqfxpwxWH7BZJBfzT7UxYIy6iIVLMdrlnS2Kl6ESzv2cBdMCdtu w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFALnv11OtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgw6BLdM4AYEQFneEBQEEOj8SASoUQiYBBA4NiDq/QBePGzGDNoEbBbAdg0mCMQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,758,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="343631389"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2014 19:06:23 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6TJ6NCR029124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:06:23 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:06:23 -0500
From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling
Thread-Index: Ac+rXdFAjNn+1/4gRVGf5hQhUm4haQ==
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:06:22 +0000
Message-ID: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/oH6GWUrVGt7AxE5BaZYdMxA7QNA
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] IANA-related comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling
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, 29 Jul 2014 19:06:25 -0000


A couple of things on the IANA section in this doc. I'm not actually sure what the right thing to do is in either case - perhaps the Chairs could offer guidance if need be?

First: in the new "Values for Wavelength Assignment Method field in WavelengthSelection Sub-TLV" registry, would it be worth specifying a small range of values for Experimental Use (or any of the other categories, for that matter)? Note that I don't have any proposal for what might be done with these; I'm just thinking that they may come in useful in the future.

Second: the new Path-error subcodes in this doc have been assigned values already (not even marked as "suggested". Have you got early allocation of these? Or should they become TBD until IANA formally assigns them? Just wondering, since we're going through the same stuff with the SRLG-collection draft...