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

[Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>]

+gen-art review who noted similar issues in the registration policy

On Apr 10, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Pearl Liang via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Sue, and Jeff,
> 
> Thank you Sue for clarifying the timeline and the IANA actions.  Your instructions are very 
> clear.  Just a few nits/question.  
> 
> - Regarding the Form for new created registries:
> 
> Form: Sub-type Value, Name, Reference, Registration Type
> 
> Can you clarify what types of information will go to the element "Registration Type"
> in the BGP Extended Communities registry?

I believe Sue had intended this to match the form of the existing "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types" registry.  This includes sub-type value and name as fields with reference to the document and date.  Is that right, Sue?


> 
> - This is likely for Jeff.  I noticed now that the two new registrations for Part 2 
> Sub-Types and Part 3 Sub-Types have different names in the IC section:
> 
> /snip/
> IANA is requested to create the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use
> Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry.  It should be seeded
>   with the following Sub-Type:
> 
>   0x08 - Flow spec redirect IPv4 format.
> 
>   IANA is requested to create the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use
>   Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry.  It should be seeded
>   with the following Sub-Type:
> 
>   0x08 - Flow spec redirect AS-4byte format.
> /snip/

I think the text was unclear.  The intention is to create two new registries in the form of the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Type".  The new registries are distinct in that the first octet value (the type) is 0x81 and 0x82 for Part 2 and Part 3 respectively.

Within each of those registries, there is a single entry registered,as per above.

Please see the attachment at the end of this mail for new proposed IANA Considerations text that I believe conveys this intent.  It contains all edits to date.

> 
> Please update the names to the one in Sue's comment if the names should 
> be consistent in both sub-regisries.
> 
> I'll let you work on the action items on your end.  If you have questions for us,
> please contact us.
> 
> Thanks,
> ~pl
> 
> 
> On Fri Apr 10 00:33:05 2015, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Pearl:
>> 
>> This is my understanding of what needs to change, and hopefully
>> answers all your questions.  I apologize that this draft got to you
>> without the new form.
>> 
>> I'll wait for an acknowledgement from Jeff that he is re-writing the
>> draft to cover these changes. Once Jeff has re-written the draft, this
>> draft will be 1 week WG LC to cover this change.  Please set your
>> timer to check on this in 2 week.
>> 
>> Answers to your questions:
>> O Action 1, Q1: the RFC should be [RFC5575, RFC-to-Be]
>> On Action 2, this is correct,  Please update the free space in the
>> registry to indicate only 0x83 to 0x8f are free.

Agreed.

>> 
>> On action 3, Q1:  Please create a new entry under the following web-
>> page
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-
>> communities.xhtml
>> 
>> Name the web page the following:
>> "Generic Transitive Experimental Use
>>  Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry.
>> 
>> Form: Sub-type Value, Name, Reference, Registration Type
>> 
>> Sub-Type Value  Name                     Reference  Registration-type
>> 0x00-0x07        TBD                         TBD
>> Standards action
>> 
>> 0x08               Flow Spec redirect
>>                       AS-4byte format      [This-RFC]   Standards
>> 
>> 0x09-0x40     TBD                            TBD             Standards
>> action
>> 0x41-0xff   Reserved

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?


>> 
>> 
>> On action 3, Q4:
>> Please create a new entry under the following web-page
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-
>> communities.xhtml
>> 
>> Name the web page the following:
>> "Generic Transitive Experimental Use
>>  Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry.
>> 
>> Form: Sub-type Value, Name, Reference, Registration Type
>> 
>> Example:
>> Sub-Type Value  Name                   Reference  Registration-type
>> 0x00-0x07        TBD                         TBD
>> Standards action
>> 
>> 0x08               Flow Spec redirect
>>                       AS-4byte format      [This-RFC]   Standards
>> 
>> 0x09-0x40     TBD                            TBD             Standards
>> action
>> 0x41-0xff   Reserved
>> 
>> 
>> Sue Hares
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pearl Liang via RT [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:42 PM
>> Cc: [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: [IANA #814082] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-
>> rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended
>> Community) to Proposed Standard
>> 
>> (BEGIN IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS)
>> 
>> IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:
>> 
>> IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.  Authors
>> should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any
>> inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.
>> 
>> IANA has several questions about some of the actions requested in the
>> IANA Considerations section of this document.
>> 
>> We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:
>> 
>> IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four
>> actions which IANA is required to complete.
>> 
>> First, in the Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community
>> Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended
>> Communities registry located at:
>> 
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/
>> 
>> the existing registration for Type Value 0x08 will have its name
>> updated from:
>> 
>> Flow spec redirect
>> 
>> to:
>> 
>> Flow spec redirect AS-2byte format
>> 
>> and have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]
>> 
>> QUESTION [1]:  This draft indicates that it updates RFC5575 according
>> to the header information in the draft.  Is the author intended to
>> remove the existing defining reference from the registry?
>> 
>> 
>> Second, in the BGP Transitive Extended Community Types subregistry
>> also in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities
>> registry located at:
>> 
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/
>> 
>> two new registrations will be added as follows:
>> 
>> Type Value: 0x81
>> Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2
>> (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental
>> Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" Registry)
>> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
>> 
>> Type Value: 0x82
>> Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3
>> (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental
>> Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" Registry)
>> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
>> 
>> Third, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive
>> Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry.
>> 
>> IANA QUESTION [1]  -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it
>> a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an
>> existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in
>> which registry will it be contained?  In the same BGP Extended
>> Communities located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-
>> communities registry?
>> 
>> IANA QUESTION [2]  -> What rules should be used for maintenance of
>> this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to
>> select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry.
>> 
>> QUESTION: [3] What is the range for this new Part 2 Sub-Types
>> registry?
>> 
>> QUESTION: [4] Is the author intended to use the same table format as
>> the existing sub-registry
>> "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types"
>> which has
>> the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and
>> (Registration) Date?
>> 
>> IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the
>> new registry as follows:
>> 
>> Type Value: 0x08
>> Name: Flow spec redirect IPv4 format
>> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
>> 
>> Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive
>> Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry.
>> 
>> IANA QUESTION [1] -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it
>> a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an
>> existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in
>> which registry will it be contained?
>> 
>> IANA QUESTION [2] -> What rules should be used for maintenance of this
>> new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to select
>> and apply maintenance policy for a new registry.
>> 
>> QUESTION: [3] What is the range for this new Part 3 Sub-Types
>> registry?
>> 
>> QUESTION: [4] Is the author intended to use the same table format as
>> the existing sub-registry
>> "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types"
>> which has
>> the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and
>> (Registration) Date?
>> 
>> IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the
>> new registry as follows:
>> 
>> Type Value: 0x08
>> Name: FFlow spec redirect AS-4byte format
>> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
>> 
>> IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones required to
>> be completed upon approval of this document.
>> 
>> Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
>> until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This
>> message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
>> 
>> Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early
>> allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more
>> information, please see RFC 7120.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Pearl Liang
>> ICANN
>> 
>> (END IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS)
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed Mar 18 20:33:49 2015, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG
>>> (idr)
>>> to
>>> consider the following document:
>>> - 'Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community'
>>>  <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> as Proposed
>>> Standard
>>> 
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
>>> the
>>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2015-04-08. Exceptionally, comments
>>> may
>>> be
>>> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> 
>>> Abstract
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec
>>> Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575
>>> (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The file can be obtained via
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-
>>> bis/
>>> 
>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-
>>> bis/ballot/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
>