Re: [Idr] Debate about IANA assignment policies for BGP-LS registries

Hi Adrian

I agree with Ketan as well on option #3.

Thanks

Gyan

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:29 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Adrian,
> I agree with Ketan and would vote for #3 - I thought the last thread was
> just wordsmithing the DE guidance and not grounds for a document reset.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On 11/19/20, 8:34 AM, "Idr on behalf of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <
> idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi Adrian,
>
>     First, thanks for doing this.
>
>     You've provided 3 options:
>         1. Leave the assignment policies and DE instructions in place per
> 7752 and state that they do what we want.
>         2. Leave the assignment policies in place per 7752, but change the
> DE instructions to give explicit advice about Internet-Drafts.
>     KT> I don't believe the first two options can solve/address the main
> issue why we went down this path. i.e. the "permanency" point for
> "Specification Required" in RFC8126 and what is there today in the I-D
> boilerplate. That is a different battle.
>
>         3. Change the assignment policies to be simply "Expert Review" and
> change the DE instructions to describe what the DE must do.
>     KT> I would vote for this one. "Expert Review" is what is already
> there in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registries. The only change required is the
> text for DE guidance and for that the text in RFC7370 (i.e. the way it is
> done in IS-IS) looks apt to me for BGP-LS.
>
>     If there is more tweaking that the WG requires, then let us remember
> that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis/ is
> following up right behind (hopefully very soon).
>
>     The goal of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registries was to get a "quick point
> fix" RFC for the allocation scheme for BGP-LS code-points. IMHO stretching
> it out much further just defeats its purpose.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Ketan
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>     Sent: 19 November 2020 13:56
>     To: idr@ietf.org
>     Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org
>     Subject: [Idr] Debate about IANA assignment policies for BGP-LS
> registries
>
>     Hi,
>
>     You may have noticed some recent debate about
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registries on the IDR list.
>
>     It is possible that, notwithstanding WG last call, the draft doesn't
> correctly capture what the working group wanted.
>
>     Since I hold the pen for the draft and am one of the Designated
> Experts for the registry, I will try to set out my understanding of what we
> currently have, what the document says, and what questions the WG may need
> to address next.
>
>     [For the avoidance of doubt: I'm just trying to serve the WG and
> clarify the instructions to the DEs, I don't have much of an opinion about
> this.]
>
>     The registries were created by RFC 7752 and currently make assignments
> according to "Specification Required." RFC 8126 (which post-dated RFC 7752)
> defines these terms in section 4.6. "Specification Required" includes the
> requirement for:
>     - review by a Designated Expert
>     - documentation in a permanent and readily available public
> specification
>
>     Debate rages about the meaning of "permanent" in this context. Does an
> Internet-Draft count, does it expire, or is it archived by the tools page?
>     Does an individual I-D count, or does it need to be adopted first?
> Does IANA track the I-D version, and if not what does it mean when a new
> version changes the meaning of a code point?
>
>     As Alvaro, our AD remarks, IDR is not the place to have this debate.
> It is probably an IETF-wide debate and anyone is welcome to take it up with
> IANA and the IESG.
>
>     What we need to do is decide what we want as our policy for these
> registries to be, and then work out how to achieve it. We can then set the
> DE guidance (see section 5.1 of RFC 7752) to achieve the right results.
>
>     It seems, from various discussions on the list, that the WG (or some
> of its more vocal participants) want to be able to assign code points based
> on I-Ds and without requiring to do early allocation (RFC 7120). There seem
> (to me) to be three ways to approach this:
>
>     1. Leave the assignment policies and DE instructions in place per 7752
> and state that they do what we want.
>     2. Leave the assignment policies in place per 7752, but change the DE
> instructions to give explicit advice about Internet-Drafts.
>     3. Change the assignment policies to be simply "Expert Review" and
> change the DE instructions to describe what the DE must do.
>
>     The current draft seeks to implement option 3.
>
>     I'd note that a secondary issue arises about requests for codepoints
> arising from outside the IETF. Suppose another SDO or a vendor wants a code
> point:
>     Do they have to write an I-D? Does it have to gain adoption in the WG?
>
>
>
>     The chairs have a slide on this for the meeting on Friday. I'll leave
> it to them to decide whether there is time in the meeting to discuss the
> topic, but the agenda was previously full. Perhaps a discussion on this
> list would be better.
>
>     Best,
>     Adrian
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Idr mailing list
>     Idr@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Idr mailing list
>     Idr@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD