Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 27 August 2021 20:23 UTC
Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 905883A15DA; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 WE1sM0v3HaeW; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23443A15D7; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BAC7B1E27C; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 16:23:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 16:23:45 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210827202345.GK19054@pfrc.org>
References: <20210827200116.GJ19054@pfrc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210827200116.GJ19054@pfrc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GTXhFg9K3IBhtCTsefoZOUTqkOk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 20:23:53 -0000
Correcting some mistakes in my write-up: The sections below are in Section 6, IANA Considerations, so this is the location where the request for the registries are being made. My audit was to check vs. the existing IANA registry where I noted their absence. -- Jeff On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 04:01:16PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > 2032 6.1.4. BGP-LS Node Flags Registry > > 2034 The "BGP-LS Node Flags" registry is requested to be created for the > 2035 one-octet sized flags field of the Node Flag Bits TLV (1024) and > 2036 populated with the initial values shown below: > > 2038 Bit Description Reference > 2039 ----------------------------------------------- > 2040 0 Overload Bit (O-bit) [This document] > 2041 1 Attached Bit (A-bit) [This document] > 2042 2 External Bit (E-bit) [This document] > 2043 3 ABR Bit (B-bit) [This document] > 2044 4 Router Bit (R-bit) [This document] > 2045 5 V6 Bit (V-bit) [This document] > 2046 6-7 Unassigned > > 2048 Allocations within the registry under the "RFC Required" policy (see > 2049 [RFC8126]). > > This registry is absent from the IANA Considerations. Similarly, IANA does not > have a registry in the expected place: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml > > 2051 6.1.5. BGP-LS MPLS Protocol Mask Registry > > 2053 The "BGP-LS MPLS Protocol Mask" registry is requested to be created > 2054 for the one-octet sized flags field of the MPLS Protocol Mask TLV > 2055 (1094) and populated with the initial values shown below: > > 2057 Bit Description Reference > 2058 ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 2059 0 Label Distribution Protocol (L-bit) [This document] > 2060 1 Extension to RSVP for LSP Tunnels (R-bit) [This document] > 2061 2-7 Unassigned > > 2063 Allocations within the registry under the "RFC Required" policy (see > 2064 [RFC8126]). > > See prior comment about missing IANA Considerations and registry at IANA. > > 2066 6.1.6. BGP-LS IGP Prefix Flags Registry > > 2068 The "BGP-LS IGP Prefix Flags" registry is requested to be created for > 2069 the 1 octet sized flags field of the IGP Flags TLV (1152) and > 2070 populated with the initial values shown below: > > 2072 Bit Description Reference > 2073 ---------------------------------------------------------- > 2074 0 IS-IS Up/Down Bit (D-bit) [This document] > 2075 1 OSPF "no unicast" Bit (N-bit) [This document] > 2076 2 OSPF "local address" Bit (L-bit) [This document] > 2077 3 OSPF "propagate NSSA" Bit (P-bit) [This document] > 2078 4-7 Unassigned > > 2080 Allocations within the registry under the "RFC Required" policy (see > 2081 [RFC8126]). > > See prior comment about missing IANA Considerations and registry at IANA. > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
- [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf-idr… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Document shepherd review for draft-ietf… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)