Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jon.

On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 20:26 +0000, Jon Mitchell (GNS) wrote:
> Elwyn -
> 
> Yes, I agree this is a reasonable change to remove all of the
> "suggestion" text in the IANA considerations area and will make sure
> it is in the next draft if one is required, either way all of that
> text will be removed by IANA, who has also just sent back their review
> of the actions required.
Seems like we are all agreed where things need to go here. Good!
> 
> On your second comment, currently being published as an RFC is a draft
> reserving as0 in a similar fashion, so I do think it's most
> appropriate as a second doc.. 
Yeh.. I know, I was also gen-art reviewer for that one. Probably too
late to squeeze it in there .. and it wouldn't have been much more
sensible there either.

> and I really have trouble tying these reservations to a RFC about
> Private ASN's.   If no doc is published, the good news is that IANA
> has already reserved the last number (with no justification).  Again,
> if IESG or others feel strongly it should be in this draft, I will try
> to work out some text to justify their reservations...
Oh, well it looks as if somebody ought to spend a merry evening cobbling
together a two section draft to reserve the top number for the sake of
completeness.

Regards,
Elwyn
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:12 PM
> To: Jon Mitchell (GNS)
> Cc: General Area Review Team; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03
> 
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 15:26 +0000, Jon Mitchell (GNS) wrote:
> > Elwyn -
> > 
> > Thanks for your review. 
> :-)
> 
> >  The suggestion is being made to IANA who owns the assignment and was 
> > discussed at length in the working group with rough consensus.
> As specified in the registry, allocations in this registry are either by IETF Concensus (i.e. a suitable RFC such as this draft is intended to
> be) or request from a RIR. Thus it isn't a matter of suggesting to IANA but telling them what the IETF want done - so this draft should be definitive - and what you said about WG concensus constitutes the values to be used unless somebody else in the IETF manages to alter the concensus which seems unlikely.
>   
> > IANA will replace the suggested values into TBDX values below that 
> > text if IESG approves.  This text will not be in the RFC, it's to be 
> > stricken from the final document by RFC Editor (I was attempting to 
> > write this text in alignment with Section 5.1 of RFC 5226) .
> Yes, that's fine and as expected.
> > 
> > On the final ASN in the range, this is in accordance with like 
> > reservation of the existing 2 byte Private ASN reservations, where the 
> > final ASN in that space is not utilized either (except for well-known 
> > community values).  Also, a case was made that code implementations 
> > tend to have issues with final number usage if using incorrect 
> > variable types for storage.  That said, the small discussion on and 
> > off list about this resolved that if we wanted to formalize the 
> > reservation of the last ASN of both the 2 byte space 65535 and the 4 
> > byte space 4294967295, probably a separate draft should be constructed 
> > detailing the logic behind these as they have nothing to do with 
> > Private ASN's per se and have already been marked as Reserved by IANA 
> > as you noted.  I'm open to IESG direction if we want to take a 
> > different approach on this...
> Publishing a separate draft seems a bit overkill but clearly that's not my decision. ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> Elwyn
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:15 AM
> > To: General Area Review Team
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Gen-art last call review of 
> > draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03
> > 
> > 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-idr-as-private-reservation-03.txt
> > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> > Review Date: 15 February 2013
> > IETF LC End Date: 22 February 2013
> > IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
> > 
> > Summary: Ready for the IESG.
> > 
> > Nits/editorial comments:  The draft is not actually definitive about range of values to be allocated - the range in s10 is just a 'suggestion'.  Who is actually making the decision about the range?
> > 
> > Aside: I noted that the highest possible 32 bit number (4294967295 =
> > 0xFFFFFFFF) is excluded from the proposed range.  This is marked as 
> > reserved in the IANA table but AFAICS this reserved item does not have 
> > a specification associated with the reservation.  This document would 
> > be an opportunity to explicitly mention that the topmost value is 
> > reserved (for future expansion? :-) )
> > 
> > 
>