Re: [Idr] Thoughts on https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 7:52 PM

> 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?

A propos of which,

draft-evens-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-00

squats on four values in 'BMP Statistics Types' and, although not
mentioned in IANA Considerations, redefines a bit  in BMP Peer flags.

The GROW WG appears not to have a procedure to deal with this.  Should
we take the authors,

 T. Evens
 S. Bayraktar
 M. Bhardwaj
 Cisco Systems
 P. Lucente
 NTT Communications

tie them to a stake in the foyer and throw rotten eggs at them?

Tom Petch

> 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.
>
> Adrian
> --
> Support an author and your imagination.
> Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales.
> More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales.
> https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
> Or buy from me direct.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> > Sent: 23 March 2017 19:09
> > To: 'Jeffrey Haas'
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hares-idr-bgp-
> > 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 [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:46 PM
> > To: Susan Hares
> > Cc: 'Eric C Rosen'; 'John G. Scudder'; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
> > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt
> >
> > 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
> >
> >