Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adrian Farrel <> Tue, 23 March 2021 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F913A156E; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 TtDSbWFo4KbH; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2742C3A156B; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 12NKe15H032400; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:40:01 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A95C22044; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:40:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 228B222042; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:40:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 12NKdxZr018014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:40:00 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'Benjamin Kaduk' <>, 'The IESG' <>
Cc:,,, 'Susan Hares' <>, 'Jie Dong' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:39:59 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <0c7501d72024$b27766c0$17663440$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQEWD5smbCoZ9XEZo1dIX4MC0LAKBKwUIY5g
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.373-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--2.373-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--2.373100-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: fE0JoqABJp3xIbpQ8BhdbPHkpkyUphL94NNiN6MhlPAFsmz50uKpBj77 Lhrh7xxoSYcwkmMXrHjzVYivwiKOht98tg035JaQWTWEh5N2a9EPIY8i9XFmcJ1qZlgC/lFwpRO 4FD9ZG/9oU7j4KRI8ypDnMATzmJCNLYWP6Nf7bKa2ocAC1t+YxYVQ55H8w+7mgHhfJtGVOYQ8u8 8YnR4WKVy4BDA30kQP0YZRvDIy61y2Kkcom9iYSNMJkd+MUUHP1B5mjfppvWB32Xz6cV3Ps/bpI Tsbsw2Iw8qs5K0jtNBiRzBt6iX9RljUHtWy7vHZOctXWsNe0qV4Xox68xVlQAbYcy9YQl6eXBsE kVBDd689l+ozWs5zfLm5LPmirU91XSJ4c3nT+QcrCLswi3NpjRg6dAPBanTEmyiLZetSf8kir3k OMJmHTF8tcA3sDc5HC24oEZ6SpSmb4wHqRpnaDgcRK4jaZGb6TCzjg1pdj5pK8UZD+apmFdnmJd +ZMN9btWQQIEIuk2joA5noLGS3OPedNAUY2NTYbuJDJy/oWHibGVdEZmDzHuQ/bJqlQQ/copZ51 QxAj3fx+wL7E8WTG+w2n3R9PgSO6gsmHm5e1+w=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:40:16 -0000

Hi Ben,

> This document changes the registration policy to "Expert Review" which,
> as even quoted in this document, "has no requirement for a formal
> document".  Yet the specific guidance to the expert is written as if
> there will always be a document

Yeah, that's right.

According to 8126

   The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance
   to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the

That's what this document does. In other words, it takes Expert Review as the base, and then sets out the required documentation and review criteria.

> consider "[i]f the document is not
> adopted by the IDR Working Group", "IANA will update [...] a reference
> to the associated document", "[i]n the event that the document is", ...
> Is there a requirement for a document or not?  (Alternately, what
> happens if there is a request with no associated document?)

There is a requirement for a document. But what is a document?
This could be clearer 2.1. How about...

   1.  Application for a code point allocation may be made to the
       Designated Experts at any time.
   1.  Application for a code point allocation may be made to the
       Designated Experts at any time, and MUST be accompanied
       by technical documentation explaining the use of the code
       point.  Such documentation SHOULD be presented in the
       form of an Internet-Draft, but MAY arrive in any form that
       can be reviewed and exchanged amongst reviewers.

> Section 2
> The order the sub-registries are listed in here does not match the order
> used at

Oh yes. I seem to have put them in alphabetic order.