Re: [Gen-art] [IANA #818133] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 10 April 2015 23:32 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB8A1A8EA9; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.054
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
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 iZYyHv73qmPe; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A72D1A9047; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.142;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Jeff Haas' <jhaas@juniper.net>
References: <RT-Ticket-818133@icann.org> <RT-Ticket-814082@icann.org> <20150318203322.17138.21318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <rt-4.2.9-11179-1428432109-1333.814082-7-0@icann.org> <04a501d07325$d512fd00$7f38f700$@ndzh.com> <rt-4.2.9-24558-1428683859-663.818133-7-0@icann.org> <03889FBF-8BF9-4E95-B979-0D2E8AE87E26@juniper.net> <018201d073d7$b76ad860$26408920$@ndzh.com> <8F622A02-E7C0-48D2-856A-ABAD2385CBE0@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <8F622A02-E7C0-48D2-856A-ABAD2385CBE0@juniper.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:32:14 -0400
Message-ID: <01c301d073e6$93da1640$bb8e42c0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C4_01D073C5.0CCE1B90"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQE6+HLML2gQwSNGms6g4xUTJVusXQKXHcr8AeXjvi0AmDuAVQKFbv4CAlFN5zwBqi0HfAI4qksPAhrn/k6d8o5jsA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/6eqsHbClqBABBzr2b5Ro9p5SJkI>
Cc: 'Mach Chen' <mach.chen@huawei.com>, idr-chairs@ietf.org, drafts-lastcall@iana.org, "'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'" <aretana@cisco.com>, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis@tools.ietf.org, 'General Area Review Team' <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [IANA #818133] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:32:25 -0000
Jeff: Yes, that is the best plan. Sue From: Jeff Haas [mailto:jhaas@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 7:10 PM To: Susan Hares Cc: drafts-lastcall@iana.org; draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis@tools.ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana (aretana); Mach Chen; General Area Review Team Subject: Re: [IANA #818133] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard Sue, On Apr 10, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote: Sue, is there any reason to not use a similar registration range as the 0x80 range? I.e.: 0x00-0xbf - FCFS 0xc0-0xff - IETF review? Sue: I am fine with use but it was not spelled out in the draft. If this is the range, we will need a 2 Week LC to confirm this range for both types for both types. Revise the draft so IANA can confirm, and I'll start the 2 WG LC in parallel with the other processes. Since neither of our proposals were covered in the draft originally, it makes sense to go for an updated WGLC/IETF LC anyway. Once IANA confirms that the updated text is clear, I'll issue -04 and you can start that. -- Jeff