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

Hi Amanda,

Thanks! It looks like this should be good to progress and we'll ensure 
the URL is fixed as part of the RFC Editor process.

Colin

On 29 Sep 2023, at 18:53, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:

> 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