[icnrg] [IANA #1280061] expert review for draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering (ccnx)

Hi Colin, 

If it'll be clear to readers that IANA doesn't maintain an NDN registry, we're OK with the current text.

One nit: in the Informative References section, the URL for [NDNTLV] is returning a 404 (looks like the issue is the "index.html").

thanks,
Amanda

On Fri Sep 29 10:48:54 2023, csp@csperkins.org wrote:
> 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 
> >> <drafts-expert-review@iana.org> 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 <drafts-expert-
> >>>> 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 <drafts-expert-
> >>>>>> 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