Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Les that Designated Expert (DE) guidance similar to RFC 7370 is better. Also, such allocation requests should be fully transparent to both the IDR and LSR WG lists.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM
To: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: IDR List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01


Adrian -



Inline.



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>

> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:50 PM

> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; 'Alvaro Retana'

> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]

> Cc: 'idr@ietf. org' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]

> Subject: RE: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01

>

> Hey Les,

>

> > Apologies for inserting myself in this discussion...but as

> > regards "Section2.1.  Guidance for Designated Experts"

>

> Not at all! As you may have seen, Alvaro and I had reached the point of

> needing additional eyes.

>

> > It seems you have largely retained the text from

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752#section-5.1

> > - but I am wondering why you don't replace this text with text similar to

> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 ? (which - as you

> may recall - you actually

> > wrote)

>

> Hah! Well, I had a hand in both 7370 and 7752 😊

>

[Les:] You are clearly a "man for all WGs". 😊



> Is that schizophrenia? Not completely. In 7752 and now in this document, I

> am not representing my opinion on what the IANA section should say or how

> DE guidance should be expressed; I am trying to represent the IDR view of

> how they want their registries run.

>

> > What I don’t like about the current text in Section 2.1 is:

> >

> > 1)It seems to be somewhat ambiguous as to whether a document is

> required.

> >

> > Saying

> >

> > "any  request for one of these code points has been made available for

> >   review and comment within the IETF"

> >

> > suggests that it might be allowed to request/assign a codepoint w/o a

> > document. Is this really what you intend?

>

> I believe you have correctly captured the intent of the text.

>

> My understanding of what the WG wanted was to allow a request for a

> codepoint to be made from "outside" the IETF by simply making a request.

> Since "the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the

> requested code points" I would expect some brief documentation (probably

> an email).

>

> But if "the request comes from within the IETF, it should be documented in

> an Internet-Draft."

>



[Les:] Speaking for myself, I do not really want an assignment to be made w/o a document - nor do I see the need to do so. I think the text in RFC 7370 provides sufficient flexibility - but if the WG wants to allow some other form of document not specified there that could certainly be discussed and added.



> > 2)I do not know why the DE needs to:

> >

> > "post the request to  the IDR Working Gorup mailing list (or a successor

> mailing list

> >  designated by the IESG)"

>

> It is a mixture of:

> - politeness

> - allowing people working on the protocol to know what is going on

> - an opportunity for useful input to the DEs

>

> The bit about the successor mailing list is in case IDR is closed at some point.

>



[Les:] I agree that IDR need not be the only WG. We seem to be encouraging the inclusion of BGP-LS codepoint definitions in non-IDR documents as a means of reducing the number of documents needed - so I think this point is relevant even if IDR is still alive.



   Les





> > NIT: s/Gorup/Group

> Ack

>

> > I suppose this might relate to my point #1 in that if it were allowed to

> > request a codepoint w/o a document then the relevant WG might not

> > know about the request. So if you agree to point #1 then the need for

> > this text goes away.

>

> Yes, up to a point 😊

> Even if #1 ends up requiring documentation, that documentation is not

> necessarily:

> - an I-D

> - an I-D that anyone has shared with IDR

>

> > Something I DO like is the statement:

> >

> > "the DE must

> >   ensure that any other request for a code point does not conflict with

> >   work that is active or already published within the IETF."

>

> Glad to have *something* right.

>

> > RFC 7370 does not make this explicit statement, but clearly this is

> > desirable/required.

>

> Thanks,

> Adrian