Re: [CCAMP] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05: (with COMMENT)

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 15 September 2015 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 1BD501A8761; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 qszdaIsfPEjm; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD7071A88F9; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8FEMxC5029800; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:22:59 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (jplon-nat11.juniper.net [193.110.55.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8FEMiw5029630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:22:48 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Brian Haberman' <brian@innovationslab.net>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150915141020.23734.45132.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150915141020.23734.45132.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:22:45 +0100
Message-ID: <011d01d0efc2$061a5fb0$124f1f10$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIEEToD9ko9NlpIU1Usv/qfWeN2Gp3XYOCQ
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-8.0.0.1202-21816.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.907-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--4.907-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: L8tZF6zWW2r0GGSQQaBfERes/RxhysDba7GKgkgPr1EiZRblFGx+8B94 +oYqU0pccy9a1RIYorOPWx38Q1qIm9cUNjoF7YuV9UVHiwLx0/ITiAXE61uSubV5fSMRD1zqE7o rXnCF9AyI7qXZddSBHa0Pj/9cOH4sCAKizYVJv3/K09/T6AzbViIBy2vbJcliuqWf6Nh7tmGzP/ mFbCCOqJ6Ss6O2bihGwqOonHKEy6dtNLAj8DYO8EhEDfw/93BuhQaFqMRElgmg3Vl5o99JuKPFj JEFr+oloTCA5Efyn8CNo+PRbWqfRK6NVEWSRWybRQRKyHGXcqrn0BYICO/r2lV/nskyvPfgbjmj xaKCWorXm0lkBBE5ex9z04CqgookELb3B2zYFNFGhDWil9QcDNM+4/DefDDUsJ/jxlXnd3dp9xH uM9AfUiKeUbONtgeTe1ZwdZI0d1+GWChB6AgT5w==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/sRBiSG5bjMKU6m0Mfi7lWXMghXM>
Cc: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.ad@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Sep 2015 14:23:13 -0000

Damn it , Brian!
Why did you have to spot the change I was supposed to make after IETF last call but forgot?

The code points are from rarely used registries and are the next available and most logical values. All of which means they are the values IANA would allocate under normal circumstances.

But the comment was raised before and I had said I would move to TBA1 and TBA2 with recommendations to IANA.

I can do this if it will help or if IANA prefers.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]
> Sent: 15 September 2015 15:10
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.ad@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-
> flexigrid-lambda-label.shepherd@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org;
> daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com; draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-
> label@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-
> label-05: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Is there a reason why sections 4.1, 8.1, and 8.2 are telling IANA what
> values to use in those registries? Is it due to the implementation
> described in section 6.1 using those values?