Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Chairs

Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below.

Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft?

Certainly I think it would be useful in IESG review.

Stewart

On 11/02/2013 21:15, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Ben:
>
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for the delay, my filters put this in a different place..  I'm
> explicitly adding the OSPF chairs.  Comments below.
>
>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>> you may receive.
>>
>> Document:  draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00
>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>> Review Date: 2013-01-16
>> IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-24
>>
>> Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a proposed standard.
>> There is a significant IANA registration issue described in the review
>> body.
>>
>> Major issues:
>>
>> This draft carves out a significant part of a registry with an assignment
>> policy of "standards action" for "private use". It offers very little
>> motivation for the change. In my opinion, this sort of change should come
>> with a clear justification.
>>
>> Specifically, the draft modifies the OSPFv3 Address Family Instance ID
>> registry to carve out half of the unassigned space for "private use". The
>> justification for this is a single sentence saying that some networks
>> need to use IIDs to identify specific applications. I think that needs
>> significant elaboration in order to motivate the change in a way that the
>> reader can evaluate.
>>
>> My understanding from the OFPS list is that this is in support of
>> draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, which is an informational
>> draft. I have to wonder why the draft under review was not simply the
>> IANA considerations for that draft.
>>
>> I suggest one of two paths forward:
>>
>> 1) If this change is in support of that draft in particular, then this
>> draft should say that, and include a _normative_ reference. I recognize
>> the normative downref would complicate things--but I think that
>> complication is reasonable under the circumstances.
>>
>> 2) If this change is to support a general need that goes beyond
>> draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, then this draft should
>> describe that need in enough detail for people to think about it, perhaps
>> with an informative reference to
>> draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as an _example_.
> In short (from the shepherd write-up): "The new range is for applications
> that do not justify a standards track OSPFv3 Instance ID allocation. An
> example would be "Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets"".
>
> During pre-publication review, the WG chairs asked us to not include
> explicit references to draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as that
> is just an example and not the only potential user/driver.  I don't have a
> problem adding an example, but I want to get agreement/comments/guidance
> from the chairs before adding the text.  Acee/Abhay??
>
>
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> -- section 3:
>>
>> I don't think it's appropriate to use normative language for IANA
>> requests. Especially not "MUST". (I think the strongest thing we can do
>> here is a polite request :-)  )   I suggest recasting that to descriptive
>> language, and removing section 2 and the RFC 2119 reference.
> Yes, we already removed that in the -01 version.
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> .
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html