Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

< adding the WG alias and our AD >

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the discussion. I will summarize the two points as follows:

1) Should the reference to [IEEE802.1AX] be informative? It is currently
normative. The context is covered in draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis-02. We will
wait for guidance from our AD/IESG on this.

2) There is a proposal to take a "half-step" to build guard rails at the
point of IANA allocations so future documents that introduce new sub-TLVs,
that they cover the applicability of those new sub-TLVs to the L2 Bundle
Member sub-TLV. Following is a draft proposed text (feel free to suggest
alternative) to be added to the IANA considerations of this document. I am
not aware of any such precedent and so would like to seek feedback from the
WG and our chairs/AD if this is something that we should do.

<NEW>

   This document updates the guidance to IANA for further allocations

   from the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" [1] and the

   "OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs" [2] registries and requests the addition

   of this document as a reference to those registries. It requires

   that any document requesting allocation of code point from these

   two registries need to indicate the applicability of the introduced

   sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member TLV in that document.


[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-link-tlv-sub-tlvs

[2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#extended-lsa-sub-tlvs

</NEW>


Thanks,
Ketan

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:16 PM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ketan,
>
> I've trimmed the conversation down to just the relevant points.
>
> On 9/21/22 10:07 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
> > KT> This ID-nits warning is perhaps simply because the normative
> > reference is not from an IETF publication and so perhaps the tool is not
> > able to determine if that publication is "standards" or informational.
> > As far as the guidance from draft-kucherawy, I'll wait for our AD and
> > IESG to share their views - we'll do as indicated by the IESG.
>
> OK
>
> > KT> If I understand your point, and I am paraphrasing, the idea is that
> > we add this document as reference on the OSPFv2/v3 code point registry
> > and in this document's IANA section we add guidelines for IANA to look
> > for whether the allocation request has specified the applicability to
> > the L2 Bundle Member Sub-TLV. So that acts as a checkpoint before future
> > allocations out of this registry. Is that correct?
>
> Yes
>
> > So this is half-step
> > between the current state of the document and the suggested new document
> > that changes the registry organization.
>
> I guess. If this hypothetical new document straightens things out
> better, then this would simply cover anything that happens until that
> new document is adopted, or in case that never happens.
>
> Alternately, you could hold this document until that other one is ready.
>
> >     One last thought: have you considered whether potential future
> updates
> >     to the definitions to currently defined sub-TLVs could ever change
> >     their
> >     applicability?
> >
> >
> > KT> That would be very remote/unlikely IMO.
> >
> >     I suspect any time a change is made to the registry that
> >     adds/replaces a reference to a document defining a sub-TLV, the newly
> >     referenced document will need to "indicate applicability".
> >
> > KT> Sure and this should be taken care of by the IANA checks when the
> > new document reference is updated in registry.
>
> Yes.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
>