IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 31 July 2014 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 AC70E1A0AB1 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 04:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 LYzwwrs4ST1L for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 04:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.196.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B913A1A0AAD for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 04:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10616 invoked by uid 0); 31 Jul 2014 11:12:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2014 11:12:06 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id Z5Bz1o0062SSUrH015C2iZ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:12:05 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=A68hd6JcikYA:10 a=MKMuUdMyT54A:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=I0CVDw5ZAAAA:8 a=3NE4dHWJQhJQzSHuaLAA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=H93TdC9Y26XRl8GbFJho/0JjhIXBGh9FE7aFuK7G0d4=; b=bpGAfC0syQ5xXelTS2MMw/YdTAHfpfKQAeN/+uvkmzXHsxwrtQCsysOhIBLE42N5sk5v2ASV3CfFYSTJz+KbkR+3wmSeSiGbzSgHkDwVmpvst1K09GZugBQUQ9WAntpF;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:38258 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1XCoHA-0001Wi-Cx; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 05:12:00 -0600
Message-ID: <53DA24A5.4070003@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 07:12:37 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>
References: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14A00D35@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/vZLXarQbkoqRYhw7x_gYDqXBTws
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:12:15 -0000

On 7/29/2014 3:06 PM, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote:
> ...
> 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.
> ...

Matt,
    (Since you asked...) I'm inclined to use the same approach I
suggested for draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry, i.e.,
Standards Action and Specification Required policies.  It's fairly
straight forward and flexible. I also know of no cases where
Experimental has actually been used by CCAMP or in GMPLS.  The recent
discussion came the closest and, as mentioned in Toronto, clearly isn't
the right answer.

Looking at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml
you'll see various policies have been used/suggested, including the
combination I mention.  Perhaps we, as a WG, should agree, on default
policy for the GMPLS registry...

Thank you for raising the topic.

Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email