Re: [Idr] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for reading.

Speaking as the pen-holder for the document, but not guaranteeing to represent WG consensus on this point...

> I would like to understand the intent of this document a little better.
>
> RFC 8126 subtly implies that "Expert Review" is a little laxer than
> "specification required". But the guidance to experts in this draft seems to
> closely match "IETF Review" (sec 4.8 of 8126) except that it allows documents
> to get an allocation at an earlier stage in the process. The shepherd comment
> that "RFC Required" was an alternative proposal also indicates that the intent
> to become more, not less, strict. Indeed, the main change appears to be
> eliminating allocations to non-IETF-stream documents.
>
> So why not simply change the registry to "IETF Review" and allow provisional
> allocations? It would be much easier to use established mechanisms and standard
> definitions than rewriting them in this document. Is the SHOULD in Sec 2.1
> carrying a lot of weight here?

My understanding of IETF Review is that (absent early allocation) assignment cannot be made without publication of an IETF-consensus RFC. The WG wanted to enable assignments to be made sooner.

You are correct that early allocation would meet this requirement, however, the WG said that it found the early allocation procedure annoying because of the "maturity" requirement, and because of the need to renew assignments. The WG wanted to make a one-shot assignment.

You are also correct that the addition of the DE guidance strengthens Expert Review towards Specification Required, but it doesn't quite get there. A lot depends on whether an Internet-Draft is considered to be a stable reference. The working group was aware that opinions vary on this point and did not want to get into that debate. It seemed pragmatic to use Expert Review and set the exact requirements in the DE guidance.

And, before anyone asks 😉, yes, we could have included explanation text in the I-D saying why we have this approach. But, AFAICS, no other document has ever included explanation for the choice of assignment policy. Simply, this is the policy the WG would like to see applied to the registry.

Cheers,
Adrian