Re: [Idr] Thoughts on

"Adrian Farrel" <> Fri, 24 March 2017 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD2012773A for <>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id in4pvt_5QL7T for <>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D111294BE for <>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2OIr2J6028198; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:53:02 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2OIqwqs028158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:53:01 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'Susan Hares' <>, 'Jeffrey Haas' <>
References: <048701d29cd9$15204b80$3f60e280$> <022201d29ce6$ffb2ba40$ff182ec0$> <> <02dc01d2a25b$a1eca590$e5c5f0b0$> <> <> <> <050901d2a3fd$734b3e10$59e1ba30$> <> <001f01d2a401$1fc173a0$5f445ae0$> <> <00b301d2a408$f975b460$ec611d20$>
In-Reply-To: <00b301d2a408$f975b460$ec611d20$>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:52:58 -0000
Message-ID: <038601d2a4cf$dd34db60$979e9220$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHgLJVhftftdlZ2OeQGM5dxbx7ZtQIfusEjApalZLoB3VIuCQJnQvCHApVdmPIBwb1GPgECN7t0AgoLdiwB6VksPAE6yA/0An4Ij2Wg2T8fQA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--34.794-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--34.794-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 1ZHks2aQIkgF94UiDfmWytjko+KiQPUGLAnNohUyMa2YjVGk//6gycxF Qxp3PhHyY2lCzQi39ZLy7+YHWQ1L0Rw7NWRnX+2ceUyVZX4ivrvomPrNi98UBED0B37vQ26THME OEYcB5mkm+OJfOTgVT415MIIfJxo1cyxSKSOdP+y3UCG/IQp2PpwW7MPsTONF2qqh/6B8PpGJUU PpIhfF5NRevOMb629aupC6MfP3QBVHRupzdT1rchz2MDiYujy5flWvrY6z7GKabNoYojBQdqiZa OZUGVmqMelH7qhnqUE/0YJS2+Uc1rRgLeduNs8xwgzEIaHq7pclUwMLwz1Qz142zm1Zi+MJVPt4 gQaCtT9NYvDaO9t+nM3Xtn9HtskcfPmUQQG69pydVNZaI2n6/56KYa03LCO2aIwFrkgzXvaPvg6 L6ha7bfDjExc/+7QXN5PbzyayxNRUIV59BFXczo1nuRzhSr7jkUtSee+57IFBQfUgydCNnyOhB/ 49+Z8oeSj+2iiKL68jk/kPI8DPx5YZm9kw6UYUCFaAixm5eU8Lce5ZyDJAJuouc5Rcf1B0KpAHP dqyCcdqH84lsyg+s0am6KBu0q1DVJbgo5fZJ2vcWo5Vvs8MQr5d9p1Y13sKFJ4V2QoSrxetQ9Sc ZTpsKd/K5k+qLCYLkhgvntmboBhVq1v9C2Djn5RrnSy7UTtbH181YDtIVarM7zpEspqG/zpbfdT AcNXm4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOt+03P1hii2skseWplitmp0j6C0ePs7A07QKmARN5PTKc
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:53:07 -0000

Returning to this after a while away, I wonder whether the problem doesn't have
a deeper root and so a simpler solution.

The problem could be stated as "Sometimes code points are assigned from BGP
registries through IETF consensus documents without proper care."
And the perceived solution is that the assignment should be reviewed by suitably
knowledgeable people. 
As Jeff says, "all eyes need to be pulled to one place."

I don't think this problem is unique to BGP (although obviously, those involved
on this list care most about BGP).
Where else does it come up in the IETF and how is it handled?

Some working groups are recognised as the centre of expertise for a protocol.
There is an expectation that *all* protocol extensions are done in that WG. This
is usually captured in the charter so that other WGs know where they stand.
Some working groups are recognised as the centre of expertise for a protocol.
There is an expectation that *all* protocol extensions will be reviewed by that
WG. This is usually captured in the charters of other WGs so they know they must
send documents for review.
Some protocols are acknowledged to have a base wider than one WG and a
Directorate exists to help the ADs by reviewing the documents (just like
RTG-Dir). This relies on the review being triggered.

I like Sue's 3 points and I think they would catch the majority of cases. They
don't, of course, ensure that SNAFUs won't arise. And they don't stop people
wilfully dodging. But they are very light touch, and that is to be applauded.

Support an author and your imagination.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales.
More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales.
Or buy from me direct.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: 23 March 2017 19:09
> To: 'Jeffrey Haas'
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
> registries-01.txt
> Thanks for the ideas!
> 1) boilerplate text for allocations,
> 2) flagged issues to one WG
> 3) cross-WG review button in datatracker.
> Sue
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas []
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:46 PM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: 'Eric C Rosen'; 'John G. Scudder';
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:13:07PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> > - If flagging for more eye review is the case, then Job's suggestion
> > is the way forward.  It works for most YANG modules.
> As I noted off-list to Job, pattern matching works great when you have a
> pattern that can catch it.  Better than nothing, especially if we end up
> with good boilerplate text for allocations.  (It might be worth having a
> chat with IANA about that.)
> > - If having the expertise to review the "flag" is the issue,  1 WG
> > being in charge of the situation will suffice with the current setup.
> > - if cross-review in all BGP working group is issue - then try my
> > registries proposal + IETF consensus.
> > - if distrust of a single answer from WG shepherd, WG chair or set of
> > WG chairs - this draft + Eric's suggestion for who can review.
> Mostly, I think once an issue is flagged, all eyes need to be pulled to one
> place.  For the registries in question, IDR@ietf is probably fine, as long
> as we reach out.
> While I share some of Eric's dislike of process, I don't quite share his
> paranoia about process blockers.  When things go awry anyway, the best we
> have in process is the appeals process.  If we've reached that point, speed
> is doomed anyway.
> > If we can define the largest concern(s), let's we could start with
> > that solution.
> I'd suggest finding a way to flag stuff is appropriate.  Nits search is one.
> Allowing chairs to prod a button in datatracker that says cross-WG review is
> needed might be another.  I suspect this may make good wgchairs discussion.
> -- Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list