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 21:46 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 9EF7A1A8AED; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, J_CHICKENPOX_102=0.6, 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 GYSjxxBJ251X; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B4A1A8AEA; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.142;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Jeff Haas' <jhaas@juniper.net>, drafts-lastcall@iana.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <03889FBF-8BF9-4E95-B979-0D2E8AE87E26@juniper.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:45:51 -0400
Message-ID: <018201d073d7$b76ad860$26408920$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQE6+HLML2gQwSNGms6g4xUTJVusXQKXHcr8AeXjvi0AmDuAVQKFbv4CAlFN5zwBqi0HfJ4VDECA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/OADI2aqb7U8UFR_VpP86XKTVsg0>
Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis@tools.ietf.org, 'Mach Chen' <mach.chen@huawei.com>, 'General Area Review Team' <gen-art@ietf.org>, "'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'" <aretana@cisco.com>
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 21:46:11 -0000

Jeff:

Answer below.  Please note if we specify the ranges you seek, we will need
to go through WG LC.  It can run in parallel with the other calls. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Haas [mailto:jhaas@juniper.net] 
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 5:12 PM
To: drafts-lastcall@iana.org
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis@tools.ietf.org;
idr-chairs@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana (aretana); Mach Chen; Susan Hares;
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

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

On Apr 10, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Pearl Liang via RT <drafts-lastcall@iana.org>
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?

Sue: Yes this was my understanding of your intent.  Did you have any other
intent? 

> 
> - 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, shares@ndzh.com 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?

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. 

>> 
>> 
>> 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:drafts-lastcall@iana.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:42 PM
>> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis@tools.ietf.org;
>> idr@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org
>> 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, iesg-secretary@ietf.org 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-08. 
>>> Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org 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.
> 
>