Re: [Idr] [BULK] Martin Vigoureux's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Christoph Loibl <[e-mail]>]

Martin, Alvaro!

Thank you for your review.

According to your conversation I suggest the following changes to the document. (If there are no objections I will upload a -04 tomorrow)

Cheers Christoph.

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 1:
OLD:

 IDR Working Group                                               C. Loibl
 Internet-Draft                                   next layer Telekom GmbH
 Updates: 7153 (if approved)                              13 October 2021
 Intended status: Standards Track
 Expires: 16 April 2022

NEW:

 IDR Working Group                                               C. Loibl
 Internet-Draft                                   next layer Telekom GmbH
 Updates: 7153 8955 (if approved)                        22 November 2021
 Intended status: Standards Track
 Expires: 26 May 2022


INTRODUCTION, paragraph 5:
OLD:

    This document updates RFC7153.

NEW:

    This document updates RFC7153 and RFC8955.

Section 1., paragraph 2:
OLD:

    Section 2 of this document requests the registry cleanup to reflect
    the actual use of those code-points (removing "Experimental Use" from
    the sub-type registry names) and changes the registration procedure
    of the types 0x80, 0x81, 0x82 to use the First Come First Served
    policy [RFC8126] and thus updates [RFC7153].

NEW:

    Section 2 of this document requests the registry cleanup to reflect
    the actual use of those code-points (removing "Experimental Use" from
    the sub-type registry names) and changes the registration procedure
    of the types 0x80, 0x81, 0x82 to use the First Come First Served
    policy [RFC8126] and thus updates [RFC7153] and [RFC8955].



-- 
Christoph Loibl
[e-mail] | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at



> On 19.11.2021, at 17:29, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On November 18, 2021 at 7:22:36 PM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> 
> 
> Martin:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Thanks for the review!
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thank you for your work.
>> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why doesn't this document update
>> 8955 just like it updates 7153? I'm asking because your document modifies the
>> allocation policy of the 0x80-0x8F range, as well as the names of 0x80, 0x81,
>> 0x82 (and of their sub-types registries), and at the same time it seems to me
>> that 7153 covers the allocation policy of the 0x80-0x8F range but only 0x80
>> (and its sub-type registry), while it's 8955 which seems to cover 0x81 and
>> 0x82 (and their sub-types registries).
> 
> rfc8955 inherited the references to the registries by Obsoleting
> rfc7674 and rfc5575.  I didn't think at the time that we needed an
> Update, but I see your point and have no objection to adding rfc8955
> to the Updated list.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.