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

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

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.

thanks,
Amanda

On Tue Sep 12 05:58:50 2023, [e-mail] 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-
> > [e-mail]> 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, [e-mail] 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-
> >>> [e-mail]> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >