[Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 23:03 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
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 14A273A19FE; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:03:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 clnQZaj8dDfD; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C29353A19BB; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id n13so8307093ejx.12; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:03:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iXp16i/6RF4XFcQWxDsE5Ezff+10vHvXLP5qMbsiuCI=; b=fmsc2PiBt4DM62OGVjp+82ydBDsQFjGXsy9rShhMYGNpVZsH9XMzMkMLWyCluNPexr npvAQ6QQMIO69D5IkJfXk2qn2HUt0euaaQqn3+HHEln+39iXqVE0SmjtvzbZrqlpW5mX 9flUM85R5v406onBChJtyCZG74/hsebajDb8hC8uAYWjpn6FcU9IOTEHMD7/LQm55G4C 5j3KbSZvFl0xMa7BxrhctZGpvcE1oR8cfWr5Y+HUgZAm2286JlYMPDtQ5abZAHjkThyS Pa6rVJMGgIY9RFLY/XtM7PQM9UH/EX3YlmOWU4eXDY+Y/KGxaxvmc9IRioF3QXMuaaSx sOng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iXp16i/6RF4XFcQWxDsE5Ezff+10vHvXLP5qMbsiuCI=; b=YKzLAVGg2fsD9sf4XHMznLW4Z1i7ywkdd5iC84d49RP4on43jYH3hbvFFoRFNJ6OEw 7eZ2O0XzZNzeUL1iZUPFxq/76JVd8YNdJI31/s6YW9gkvLUhFDnBonbftCAX2XwsrNs+ 0IhAUVmEwBIRXhHoq/ROhMBvb671dOCb9Y2J1z5Ne5Atuyt33eL6MT/LW6G5bY4//JnX luD19hEK/IyREktWXPh6Ckg9lLPoJ8rgjrFg3jh2P4FA4I76Hh6XI6fy1vSoRjXsP8NC XWFoCux/i5ACTBupEPe1fn5oMb6S4xiqAXp+73Ht00oD5hEZdfxz51a+oupwzsDXxxmF BvKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530iSPbKP44JW/ow7Yt8Q0nx+r8a3hdRPKF+yWWx9W4JfZeVywMY LXKQ86pFheyuVMeekqCPGznyNwrhlU5eNX68fNCA2xgk8Fg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZmlhSz5tztYH1+0BVpIMpHFkxj39qQ4lrqmXKnkhH+YVif0+azXTNtD3EhweEjzi0q3tUYgFwkHKzCAjsr/E=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6b02:: with SMTP id q2mr6409148ejr.122.1613689405648; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:03:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:03:24 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:03:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESszQSZx+mASniHtDgR24uYv_7GOLcgOzNDXSUYizFjBsDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org
Cc: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SgDYfgEmAVSuy2LvkSXkaP4vFdY>
Subject: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 23:03:47 -0000
Adrian: Hi! Thanks for working through my first set of comments with the WG! I realize that a significant part of the updated text in §2.1 comes from rfc7370 -- I still have questions/concerns about the lack of specificity [*]. Please see in-line. Part of this work's motivation is to remove the requirement for a "permanent and readily available public specification". The guidance in §2.1 mainly focuses on IETF-related documents (considering adoption, for example). Still, it leaves the door open for requests related to other documents (not I-Ds) to also be considered (in #2 and #4). Is that the intent? If so, is there any requirement placed on that documentation? [Also, some of the guidance may need to be reworded based on the answer.] Note that the questions I am asking (including the ones above) are because I believe the guidance can be a lot more specific, including potential exception cases (see my comments below about using SHOULD), not necessarily because I disagree with the recommendations. Thanks!! Alvaro. [*] Which of course would extend to rfc7370, but that is a different discussion. [Line numbers from idnits.] ... 123 2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts 125 Section 5.1 of [RFC7752] gives guidance to Designated Experts. This 126 section replaces that guidance. 128 In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here, 129 the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the 130 requested code points. The following points apply to the registries 131 discussed in this document: 133 1. Application for a codepoint allocation MAY be made to the 134 Designated Experts at any time. [nit] Most of the document uses "code point". Please choose one and be consistent. [major] s/MAY/may This is just a statement of fact; applicants are not subject to this document, so we can't tell them what they can or cannot do. You may want to rephrase so the action falls on the DE: "DEs MAY consider applications at any time." 136 2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise 137 from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group 138 documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored 139 documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group. [major] "SHOULD only consider...Working Group documents or...AD Sponsored" When is it ok for the DEs to consider other types of documents? For example, documents that are not in the IETF stream, or even not in I-D format? IOW, why is this action not a requirement? 141 3. In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts 142 SHOULD check with the Working Group chairs that there is 143 consensus within the Working Group to make the allocation at this 144 time. In the case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated 145 Experts SHOULD check with the AD for approval to make the 146 allocation at this time. [major] "Designated Experts SHOULD check" When is it ok for the DEs to not check for consensus/approval? IOW, why is this action not a requirement? 148 4. If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Group (or its 149 successor), the Designated Expert SHOULD notify the IDR mailing 150 list (or its successor) of the request and allow two weeks for 151 any response. Any comments received SHOULD be considered by the 152 Designated Expert as part of the subsequent step. [major] Points 2-3 assume IETF track documents. Point 4 is not explicit as to the origin of the document, but it looks like the door is open to consider documents that are not intended to be part of the IETF process. Is that the correct interpretation? [major] "SHOULD notify the IDR mailing list" When is it ok to not notify idr? IOW, why is this not a requirement? Given that most of the work will be related to idr, not requiring this action seems to conflict with the MUST in #6 below. 154 5. The Designated Experts SHOULD then review the assignment requests 155 on their technical merit. The Designated Experts SHOULD NOT seek 156 to overrule IETF consensus, but they MAY raise issues for further 157 consideration before the assignments are made. [major] "SHOULD then review the assignment requests on their technical merit" It is not completely clear whether this recommendation applies to the review or to the fact that it is done on technical merits. In either case, when would the DEs not do either? IOW, why is this action not required? [major] "SHOULD NOT seek to overrule IETF consensus" But they can?!? The action (seek) is weak. Perhaps better wording would be something like this: The Designated Experts MAY raise issues related to the allocation request for further consideration before the assignments are made. 159 6. The Designated Expert MUST attempt to ensure that any request for 160 a code point does not conflict with work that is active or 161 already published within the IETF. [major] s/MUST attempt to ensure/MUST ensure [major] What is the intent of this point? Clearly the request for a specific codepoint value can't conflict. What other types of conflicts can exist? Are you referring to similar/competing solutions or something else? If the work has already been adopted by the WG, shouldn't the WG decide if a conflict exists (or at least should have noticed one)? Should this action be required (which I guess could result in denial of the request), or is recommended ok? 163 7. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval, IANA will 164 update the registry by marking the allocated codepoints with a 165 reference to the associated document. 167 8. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the 168 Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact the Designated Expert 169 to coordinate with IANA over marking the code points as 170 deprecated. A deprecated code point is not marked as allocated 171 for use and is not available for allocation in a future document. 172 The WG chairs may inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be 173 completely de-allocated (i.e., made available for new 174 allocations) at any time after it has been deprecated if there is 175 a shortage of unallocated code points in the registry. [minor - nit] "over marking" I had to look this up to make sure using this use us correct, but I don't think it is [1]. In any case, simply "marking" should be enough. [1] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/overmarking [major] "the Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact the Designated Expert to coordinate with IANA" The allocation process is to contact IANA, who then engages the DEs for review. Why wouldn't the deprecation process be the same: contact IANA and have them engage the DEs? The end result should be the same, and it won't create an exception (wrt rfc7120). [minor] Note that if the WG Chair/AD and not the DE contacts IANA, then this process is equivalent to the process in rfc7120, and this point can be replaced with: In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the Expiry and deallocation process defined in [RFC7120] MUST be followed for the relevant codepoints. [End of Review]
- [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-regi… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-regi… Alvaro Retana