[Idr] Narrowing the questions: Debate about IANA assignment policies for BGP-LS registries

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 20 November 2020 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B266D3A1B4C; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:02:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7rb3JZnIpu6L; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A89E23A1B4B; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:02:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com []) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0AKA1hPw032053; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:01:58 GMT
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC21220C5; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:01:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown []) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 916D922090; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:01:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0AKA1t6P030250 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:01:56 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: idr@ietf.org
Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:01:55 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <01db01d6bf24$2de52c50$89af84f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01DC_01D6BF24.2DE616B0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: Ada/IyPZNBbq4N9bRPKmPtKo6Ad6zw==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.615-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--20.615-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--20.614700-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: DG9bjG0pWfm5VsDhdx2cmPVY7U3NX8JgDmTV5r5yWnoINpIFnbd6mj+4 Ay4hLf9Xb2mMwGsupP6CfAAkLV8ZpD1+meeII7bzbBMSu4v05tPso17NbhIphSBQRBOQhaJiH9B pMenWNIrZLEn9H6w28Xy9AUktjF+cD2VuZEXfbiS84C/3iwAgxKld1ZriBTRLtQUOQy1+BawcM+ 9sw875DihfhEn2+RFWgj7Flj7SXGvq4qOqfrdHJzn/wcdfjLjCh4A8KRmrGe3kMnUVL5d0E6xlG /oyG2Kc3kJlBqPwbL1RQScPDVoR0g3JzFwPEgwjhUy0TABax1yoNgF4lZVXFHQ8D+SLaQjsueok 1chxwqvJ3jhK5xvrva/xMC8mu+5XtAnihQXnq+iBFNZJ/RfzGY7P8sslRxoeyaqtcUsWOxbppfx NgiuPW4VkJmWfrkeOVe0HgRxhmkb6tT09X1ixYjE06wHA1+f+XccelkX/ubARFTEC5Ssu8qNlPi tu/PdXAjbDsDYp1ImkW3aIKju8AfVAzHuVWw1NtMD5cXhW5Evj5BwyjnidOOWTwJYZ5m89vcuwV B0jFlkqedzMvGszAQhs1FawZHiW9WfJGweW5lPmuecNOZVsqgp05isBgXOBpOwTxn+Ouv59u+Db 3mnsaYq6IDQF0Fuf6+yir7itb9R4TfcMEN543p4CIKY/Hg3AaZGo0EeYG97UHQeTVDUrIuvy5XN dq++DhBWImUbA8nV/amIKr7u1nLKtELC/GBYUMb/Qx04SpENro6b8FtAKpWYyMBiAJ70e
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_8cD1rhBMhlrUfs10EFVh9trEcI>
Subject: [Idr] Narrowing the questions: Debate about IANA assignment policies for BGP-LS registries
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, 20 Nov 2020 10:02:04 -0000

Many thanks for the continued rapid progress and to Alvaro for pointing up another issue at the mic.


Although 7370 offers a template (which I’ll use) I would like to get answers to some very specific questions to narrow this down…


A.	What do you want to require as the base reference?


1.       Do you want to limit allocations to come from *stable* WG drafts?
This is similar (as Alvaro notes) to RFC 7120 “Early Allocation” except it doesn’t invoke the AD.


2.       Do you want to limit allocations to come from (any) WG drafts?
This is more relaxed than “Early Allocation” but we might have to handle when a draft is updated and changes the meaning of the code point. We might want IANA to the draft version for allocations. Or we could say that it is all work in progress so the meaning is always the most recent version of the draft.


3.       Do you want to allow any I-D (includes WG and individual I-Ds)?
This moves closer to “First Come First Served” but requires some reference and the DE can check that it is “somewhat clear”.


4.       Do you want to allow requests without I-Ds?
This is closest to “First Come First Served”, but I think I am hearing “no” to this question.


B.	How much review do you want IDR to be allowed?


1.	DE must see WG consensus for the allocation.

2.	DE must see all issues from the WG addressed by author before allocation.

3.	DE must have answers to all issues from the WG before allocation.

4.	DE must “seriously listen” to comments.

C.	How long should IDR be given to comment?

I think this resolves to two weeks in all cases.