[Idr] [IANA #814082] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard

"Pearl Liang via RT" <drafts-lastcall@iana.org> Tue, 07 April 2015 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594141B3A52; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 5Qi9SE8_Qzww; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.lax.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.33.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CC521B3A29; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from request3.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp1.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t37Ifn6g012667; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 18:41:49 GMT
Received: by request3.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9118DC2081E; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 18:41:49 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: pearl.liang
From: "Pearl Liang via RT" <drafts-lastcall@iana.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150318203322.17138.21318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-814082@icann.org> <20150318203322.17138.21318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <rt-4.2.9-11179-1428432109-1333.814082-7-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #814082
X-Managed-BY: RT 4.2.9 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: pearl.liang@icann.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:41:49 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8HdOaq5nXNzmBDsO5-ReQL2Fq_U>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis@tools.ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] [IANA #814082] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: drafts-lastcall@iana.org
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:41:52 -0000

(BEGIN IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS)

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has several questions about some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA is required to complete.

First, in the Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

the existing registration for Type Value 0x08 will have its name updated from:

Flow spec redirect

to:

Flow spec redirect AS-2byte format

and have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

QUESTION: This draft indicates that it updates RFC5575 according to the header information
in the draft.  Is the author intended to remove the existing defining reference from 
the registry?


Second, in the BGP Transitive Extended Community Types subregistry also in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

two new registrations will be added as follows:

Type Value: 0x81
Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" Registry)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type Value: 0x82
Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" Registry)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry.

IANA QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in which registry will it be contained?  In the same BGP Extended Communities located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities registry?

IANA QUESTION -> What rules should be used for maintenance of this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry.

QUESTION: What is the range for this new Part 2 Sub-Types registry?

QUESTION: Is the author intended to use the same table format as the existing sub-registry
"Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types" which has 
the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and (Registration) Date?

IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Type Value: 0x08
Name: Flow spec redirect IPv4 format
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry.

IANA QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in which registry will it be contained?

IANA QUESTION -> What rules should be used for maintenance of this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry.

QUESTION: What is the range for this new Part 3 Sub-Types registry?

QUESTION: Is the author intended to use the same table format as the existing sub-registry
"Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types" which has 
the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and (Registration) Date?

IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Type Value: 0x08
Name: FFlow spec redirect AS-4byte format
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.  

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120. 

Thanks,

Pearl Liang
ICANN

(END IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS)


On Wed Mar 18 20:33:49 2015, iesg-secretary@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr)
> to
> consider the following document:
> - 'Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community'
>   <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> as Proposed
> Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-08. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
> This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec
> Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575
> (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-
> bis/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-
> bis/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.