From csp@csperkins.org Fri Sep 29 03:48:39 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A251CC15C501 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 03:48:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=csperkins.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IVQZ5H6TXMKK for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.mythic-beasts.com (mx1.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68C05C151719 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=csperkins.org; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=Date:Subject:To:From; bh=bsmrbT4MoDOVjdxHDYyqJ/bQSiTQUdkbtFkmLFGtJVw=; b=i9yQIxZEkgnzg5OCk5NDg2G51E SwLhP7uLfgkExB3WN3scwomM+zuqG3w5pszp0HGDigdg4Iw6LM6eN73RJeeXexHKzlclnECkEcs6S vfu4srEYhUiKuJ1z5fylYGJhAPBvvIubXrdcCDnKBYxZUf58v2BThGnhk4/5M65mSrnAjMEJy/oTt R5Mzo0HW43+SlM8DMK17ROmPm/H2mugcCM0Jwi0EC74KgcSyC1uzt3DqaLg19uHYLMPdtXzajxhlC o3IE7ERJseCUUbFmT2EuIuKOe1k/BVkwwPq94XyzZYVbRDQnxep9erz76lhHfsBIZWNkdO0gI5HY9 oG5SXeEA==; Received: by mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qmB2q-003uv7-3v; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:48:29 +0100 From: Colin Perkins To: "David R. Oran" Cc: drafts-expert-review@iana.org, icnrg@irtf.org, asaeda@nict.go.jp Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:45:31 +0100 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5964) Message-ID: <4F1D166A-5EA4-42FD-B617-C6C26FEFF26E@csperkins.org> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_0B3A14C1-5E12-4F86-89BE-7458CAD5F8C4_=" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [icnrg] [IANA #1280061] expert review for draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering (ccnx) X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:48:39 -0000 --=_MailMate_0B3A14C1-5E12-4F86-89BE-7458CAD5F8C4_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dave/IANA, Is this something that needs to be clarified in the draft or is this email discussion sufficient? Colin On 29 Sep 2023, at 2:14, David R. Oran wrote: > See below - IANA does not manage the registries for NDN. The NDN > community and NDN research project does. > ___________________________ > iDevice - please excuse typos. > >> On Sep 28, 2023, at 7:49 PM, Amanda Baber via RT >> wrote: >> >> Hi Hitoshi (cc: ICNRG), >> >> Does the new version of the document (published today) address your >> concerns? >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering-06 >> >> There is an issue for us: the IANA Considerations section has removed >> the request to register four of the five entries in Table 2, but >> Table 2 itself hasn't been removed, and is labeled "TLV-TYPE number >> assignments for NDN," which seems to indicate an action for IANA. >> > No, IANA is not needed to do assignments for NDN. > > Thanks! > >> thanks, >> Amanda >> >>> On Tue Sep 12 05:58:50 2023, asaeda@nict.go.jp wrote: >>> Hi folks and pathsteering draft authors, >>> >>> I reviewed the pathsteering draft and have couple of comments. >>> >>> At first I'd like to ask about the following Table 2 mentioned in >>> section 3.3 (Path label encoding for NDN). >>> >>> Flag (Suggested) Value (hex) >>> T_PATH_LABEL 0x0A >>> T_PATH_LABEL_FLAGS 0x0B >>> T_PATH_LABEL_BITMAP 0x0D >>> T_PATH_LABEL_NEXTHOP_LABEL 0x0E >>> T_PATH_LABEL_HOP_COUNT 0x0F >>> >>> Table 2: TLV-TYPE number assignments >>> >>> Except T_PATH_LABEL, there are no explanation about these types in >>> this draft. What are these labels used? It is necessary to explain >>> all >>> of these types and scenarios how they use. >>> Even though this section title is with NDN (not CCNx), you are >>> asking >>> the IANA assignment for these five type values in CCNx registry. You >>> may want to move this table to a different section. >>> >>> In IANA consideration section, the authors say; >>> "1. Please assign the value 0x0004 (if still available) for >>> T_PATH_LABEL in the CCNx Hop-by-Hop Types registry established by >>> [RFC8609]." >>> But 0x0004 is already reserved by rfc8609, meaning it is not >>> available. Instead you can request 0x000A. BTW, you mentioned >>> T_PATH_LABEL in Table 2. Are they same even though you assigned >>> different values in this section (0x0004) and Table 2 (0x0A)? >>> >>> "4. Please create the CCNx Path Label Flags registry and assign the >>> values listed in Table 1. The registration procedure for this >>> registry >>> should be "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC8126]." >>> My question is where the CCNx Path Label Flags are specified in a >>> CCNx packet? Under which TLV field, this new TLV field is encoded? >>> >>> Going back to section 3.1 (Path label TLV), two type values, >>> T_RETURN_INVALID_PATH_LABEL and T_RETURN_MALFORMED_INTEREST, are >>> defined for interest return. But only T_RETURN_INVALID_PATH_LABEL is >>> mentioned in the IANA section. >>> >>> I think it is necessary to revise the draft. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Hitoshi >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 5, 2023, at 3:36, Amanda Baber via RT >>> review@iana.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Hitoshi (cc: ICNRG), >>>> >>>> Sorry, looks like I didn't copy the list on my initial request! >>>> Adding them now. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Amanda >>>> >>>> On Sun Sep 03 06:29:48 2023, asaeda@nict.go.jp wrote: >>>>> Dear Amanda, >>>>> >>>>> I'll reply you before Sep. 14. >>>>> (Were your mail sent to ICNRG ML?) >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Hitoshi >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 1, 2023, at 9:52, Amanda Baber via RT >>>>> review@iana.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Hitoshi (cc: ICNRG), >>>>>> >>>>>> As a designated expert for the "CCNx Interest Return Code Types" >>>>>> registry, can you review the proposed registration in this >>>>>> document >>>>>> for us? >>>>>> >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering >>>>>> >>>>>> The due date is September 14th. >>>>>> >>>>>> If this is OK, when we're asked to implement the registry actions >>>>>> for >>>>>> this document, we'll make the registration at >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ccnx >>>>>> >>>>>> With thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Amanda Baber >>>>>> IANA Operations Manager >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> icnrg mailing list >> icnrg@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg > _______________________________________________ > icnrg mailing list > icnrg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg --=_MailMate_0B3A14C1-5E12-4F86-89BE-7458CAD5F8C4_= Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dave/IANA,

Is this something that needs to be clarified in the draft= or is this email discussion sufficient?
Colin

On 29 Sep 2023, at 2:14, David R. Oran wrote:

See below - IANA does not manage the registries for NDN. = The NDN community and NDN research project does.

iDevice - please excuse typos.

On Sep 28, 2023, at 7:49=E2=80=AFPM, Amanda Baber via RT = drafts-expert-review@ian= a.org wrote:

=EF=BB=BFHi Hitoshi (cc: ICNRG),

Does the new version of the document (published today) ad= dress your concerns?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irt= f-icnrg-pathsteering-06

There is an issue for us: the IANA Considerations section= has removed the request to register four of the five entries in Table 2,= but Table 2 itself hasn't been removed, and is labeled "TLV-TYPE nu= mber assignments for NDN," which seems to indicate an action for IAN= A.

No, IANA is not needed to do assignments for NDN.

Thanks!

thanks,
Amanda

On Tue Sep 12 05:58:50 2023, asaeda@nict.go.jp wrote:
Hi folks and pathsteering draft authors,

I reviewed the pathsteering draft and have couple of comm= ents.

At first I'd like to ask about the following Table 2 ment= ioned in
section 3.3 (Path label encoding for NDN).

Flag (Suggested) Value (hex)
T_PATH_LABEL 0x0A
T_PATH_LABEL_FLAGS 0x0B
T_PATH_LABEL_BITMAP 0x0D
T_PATH_LABEL_NEXTHOP_LABEL 0x0E
T_PATH_LABEL_HOP_COUNT 0x0F

Table 2: TLV-TYPE number assignments

Except T_PATH_LABEL, there are no explanation about these= types in
this draft. What are these labels used? It is necessary to explain all of these types and scenarios how they use.
Even though this section title is with NDN (not CCNx), you are asking
= the IANA assignment for these five type values in CCNx registry. You
may want to move this table to a different section.

In IANA consideration section, the authors say;
"1. Please assign the value 0x0004 (if still available) for
T_PATH_LABEL in the CCNx Hop-by-Hop Types registry established by
[RFC8609]."
But 0x0004 is already reserved by rfc8609, meaning it is not
available. Instead you can request 0x000A. BTW, you mentioned
T_PATH_LABEL in Table 2. Are they same even though you assigned
different values in this section (0x0004) and Table 2 (0x0A)?

"4. Please create the CCNx Path Label Flags registry= and assign the
values listed in Table 1. The registration procedure for this registry should be "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC8126].&quo= t;
My question is where the CCNx Path Label Flags are specified in a
CCNx packet? Under which TLV field, this new TLV field is encoded?

Going back to section 3.1 (Path label TLV), two type valu= es,
T_RETURN_INVALID_PATH_LABEL and T_RETURN_MALFORMED_INTEREST, are
defined for interest return. But only T_RETURN_INVALID_PATH_LABEL is
mentioned in the IANA section.

I think it is necessary to revise the draft.

Regards,

Hitoshi

On Sep 5, 2023, at 3:36, Amanda Baber via RT <drafts-e= xpert-
review@iana.org> wrote:

Hi Hitoshi (cc: ICNRG),

Sorry, looks like I didn't copy the list on my initial re= quest!
Adding them now.

thanks,
Amanda

On Sun Sep 03 06:29:48 2023, asaeda@nict.go.jp wrote:

Dear Amanda,

I'll reply you before Sep. 14.
(Were your mail sent to ICNRG ML?)

Regards,

Hitoshi

On Sep 1, 2023, at 9:52, Amanda Baber via RT <drafts-e= xpert-
review@iana.org> wrote:

Dear Hitoshi (cc: ICNRG),

As a designated expert for the "CCNx Interest Return= Code Types"
registry, can you review the proposed registration in this document
for us?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-i= cnrg-pathsteering

The due date is September 14th.

If this is OK, when we're asked to implement the registry= actions
for
this document, we'll make the registration at

http://w= ww.iana.org/assignments/ccnx

With thanks,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

icnrg mailing list
icnrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.= org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg

icnrg mailing list
icnrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.= org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg

--=_MailMate_0B3A14C1-5E12-4F86-89BE-7458CAD5F8C4_=--