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

Adrian Farrel <> Wed, 18 November 2020 05:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86753A147C; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:49:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RifAuHCHoNQY; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:49:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AF953A1476; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:49:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0AI5naJR002349; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:36 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806632203A; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A3BC22032; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0AI5nXJt029433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:33 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: "'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)'" <>, 'Alvaro Retana' <>,
Cc: "'idr@ietf. org'" <>,
References: <> <02e101d6bcb9$d1fc8fd0$75f5af70$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:33 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <054e01d6bd6e$97b43430$c71c9c90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKOcyLV/GurNH1l4YJQIghJ7Nd8ZwLhgsHOAeUAdRaoN75eEA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--13.630-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--13.630-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--13.629700-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: Rp71wniPtoOWfDtBOz4q23FPUrVDm6jtC/ExpXrHizyDQnrYS8GM3TGU phR+hxQZ71tAVQnPmH30ygvz0cjhLHNxuoViHQ/PvOAv94sAIMSZWPwlDsNQOxtd9oKtrczZrmE Czc9JBhKcSzUdQ7TI7tMoAN8NYX+vRPFGfTQDKItuyDGIvvwW0gRsBMbTTgAPT0IkL8xYhngg38 xtfHH5LUCLlcqJZSh7lgi/5VzYRsiZrzm56RA43J6N6jXWJbQ3XKQS0hyfHiq4zlF1pkNzlh0Gr nAdMXja7vK2jJNxn1GZyOCSVU688oZKkFFIbQIACuDAUX+yO6ao2aYwunfln21RcrL9l9kZ/cYs CgE2uI+TQDwpT4uaPoMbgi+POklcs0l3lkboY0HbbgI4AuYpVw73P4/aDCIFMa/5v/+qErbX6aI LJJMXl1okfQlKQ11n7RmTSj+lu50DXxxrpqrIH75k9lVEXoZauSNyZKeaiD7cDSDimi2U5AzIw3 4KJ5XmERP7wsQFt1x3uM4CZndKcmAIBIp/thEQkIHrlGNFjex841u5HtOu0Mlgi/vLS2728gY74 cmRYhQdcm2OGsPiPnUnaKTHYHtO0FXLLHexU20iJT2HHpbp5iZ+58Fmkfm3IFBEE5CFomKEtqHP cziCcefOVcxjDhcwAYt5KiTiutlTptoDfp6JrMRB0bsfrpPIfiAqrjYtFiQT2TSW1/z6KAT+XJF wqGqQ9TvigvT5Snm2/7VQVnbxVn7cGd19dSFd
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:46 -0000

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
> - but I am wondering why you don't replace this text with text similar to
> ? (which - as you may recall - you actually
> wrote)

Hah! Well, I had a hand in both 7370 and 7752 šŸ˜Š

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 donā€™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

> 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 šŸ˜Š
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.