[Idr] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Sure, we can make that change.

Regards,
-Dhananjaya

From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 5:36 PM
To: Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <dhrao=[e-mail]>
Cc: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <[e-mail]>, luay.jalil <[e-mail]>, yitai.syc <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Hares Susan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Dhananjaya and all,

I just realized that all the conversation around Roman’s DISCUSS has focused on the second part of it. But there is also a first part, where Roman is objecting to the overly-polite :-) phrasing used by the spec.

I suggest you fix this concern by changing “Additional suggestions” to “Additional requirements” or “Additional evaluation criteria” in the titles of Sections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2.

Does that phrasing work for you, Roman?

Thanks,

—John


On Feb 19, 2025, at 4:44 PM, Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <dhrao=[e-mail]> wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 10.4.1 and 10.4.2.  How is the designated expert supposed to use
this section? Both sections are titled as “Additional suggestions …”.  This
suggests that that conformance is not required for allocating a code point.

-- If conformance is not mandatory, what is the DE supposed to do with this
guidance?

-- If this is a mandatory criteria, please make the language clearer.

** Section 10.4
   If the request comes from within the IETF,
   it should be documented in an Internet-Draft.

Can the WG please clarify the intent of this text.  I see there is similar
language in RFC9256.

Based on different interpretations of “within the IETF”, I see the following
scenarios: (1) IETF stream, WG document (2) IETF stream, AD sponsored document
(3) no stream, I-D

Which subset of scenarios is being assumed by the “comes from the IETF”?

If it is only situation(1) or (2) apply, Section 2 of RFC7120 states that “The
code points must be from a space designated as "RFC Required", "IETF Review",
or "Standards Action".  Additionally, requests for early assignment of code
points from a "Specification Required" registry are allowed if the
specification will be published as an RFC.”  Therefore, if the intent is an RFC
with a WG I-D, early allocation and permanent allocation is already possible
without the above cited language.  AD sponsorship inherently assumes an RFC
publication route.  The only residual case is for WGs to be requesting
permanent allocations with an I-D that isn’t intended for publication.  Why
would this occur?

If situation (3) is applicable and the intent is to allow permanent
registration with an unadopted I-D, please be explicit.  It is in the grey area
of whether this qualifies for “coming from the IETF”.  I will note that the
forthcoming IANABIS WG is intended to resolve whether an I-D alone meet the
threshold for “specification required”.  Different registries already allow
this to occur without this text.  I acknowledge absent guiding text of some
form, there is some community controversy on this position.

With John Scudder’s help, if the sole intent of this language is to be clear
that unadopted I-Ds are accepted references for this specification required
registry consider using the following instead:

NEW
An Internet-Draft that has not been adopted by an IETF working group is
considered acceptable documentation. For adopted and AD-sponsored documents,
the normal process documented in RFC 7120 and RFC 8126 should be followed

DR# Thank you for the suggestion. I see the ongoing discussion with Sue. I will follow up with her and update the draft as needed.