Re: [icnrg] [IANA #1279170] expert review for draft-irtf-icnrg-icnping (ccnx)

[Hitoshi Asaeda <[e-mail]>]

Dear Sabrina and authors,

I’ve reviewed draft-irtf-icnrg-icnping as the CCNx registry expert. (Therefore I’ve not read the NDN part.)
Although you asked me the review for the CCNx Name Segment Types registry, I would also like to ask some additional points for the CCNx registry itself.
(Authors, if you can reply for my questions/comments below, please do it, because these comments may not be related to CCNx registry stuff.)

In the IANA consideration section, the authors say,
IANA will assign TBD1 to "Echo Request" and TBD2 to "Echo Reply" in the CCNx Packet Types registry established by [RFC8609]. IANA will assign TBD3 to "Nonce" in the Name Segment Type IANA Registry for CCNx established by [RFC8609].

According to your question,
> If this is OK, should we assign a value from the 0x0003-0x000F range, the 0x0014-0x0FFE range, or the 0x2000-0xFFFF range? 

you are asking about TBD3, which is “Nonce”. IMO, this “Nonce" should be renamed with the type name, T_NONCE, and can be assigned 0x0003 in "CCNx Name Segment Types” of the registry.

Regarding TBD1 and TBD2, 0x05 and 0x06 in CCNx Packet Types will be assigned for "Echo Request” and “Echo Reply”, respectively. It seems that they are already (tentatively) assigned in the CCNx Packet Types as seen in the IANA registry. That’s fine. But my comment is, like T_NONCE, I recommend to change the names to PT_ECHO_REQUEST (0x05) and PT_ECHO_REPLY (0x06) to keep the consistency of the Packet Types naming rule.

The following comments are not directly (but partially) related to the IANA registry.

Figs. 2 and 5, “MessageType” are 1 and 2, respectively. What do they mean? Are these values the CCNx Message Types? If so, both should be T_PAYLOAD, which is 0x0001. No? (I may be wrong, but at least the current description is unclear.)

What is "Echo Reply Code TLV”? Don’t you need to assign a new registry for this TLV? If it is newly defined, a new registry must be allocated in the IANA registry.
There is no description what Echo_Reply_Code_Type will be assigned.

How is "Path label TLV”? I know the pathsteering draft is on going, but I don't know whether this document can keep TBD for the new type value later defined by pathsteering within the current procedure toward icnping RFC.

Minor corrections:
1. “Path Label TLV” in Fig. 1 is shown as a valuable length but the one in Fig. 4 is shown as a fixed length.
2. CCNInfo should be CCNinfo according to the RFC (“I” should be lowercase).

Regards,

Hitoshi


> On Aug 19, 2023, at 7:51, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Hitoshi (cc: icnrg rg),
> 
> As the designated expert for the CCNx Name Segment Types registry, can you review the proposed registration in draft-irtf-icnrg-icnping for us? Please see
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnping-11
> 
> If this is OK, should we assign a value from the 0x0003-0x000F range, the 0x0014-0x0FFE range, or the 0x2000-0xFFFF range? 
> 
> Since this document has already been approved for publication, we will complete the registration as soon as we receive your approval. 
> 
> Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ccnx
> 
> Because Dave is one of the authors of this document, we're sending this review request only to you. 
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Sabrina Tanamal
> Lead IANA Services Specialist
>