From nobody Tue Nov 17 21:49:46 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86753A147C; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:49:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RifAuHCHoNQY; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AF953A1476; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0AI5naJR002349; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:36 GMT Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806632203A; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A3BC22032; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([195.166.134.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (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 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)'" , "'Alvaro Retana'" , Cc: "'idr@ietf. org'" , References: <02e101d6bcb9$d1fc8fd0$75f5af70$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:49:33 -0000 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <054e01d6bd6e$97b43430$c71c9c90$@olddog.co.uk> 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-Originating-IP: 195.166.134.90 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25796.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--13.630-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--13.630-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25796.005 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-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org 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 = 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 =F0=9F=98=8A 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=E2=80=99t 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=20 > > "any request for one of these code points has been made available for > review and comment within the IETF"=20 > > 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.=20 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 =F0=9F=98=8A 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