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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

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 😊

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."

> 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.

> 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