Re: [Idr] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-03: (with DISCUSS)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Mon, 22 November 2021 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C40F3A0C9A; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:00:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JIEiAbsud87g; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:00:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x934.google.com (mail-ua1-x934.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 565943A1179; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x934.google.com with SMTP id y5so37915210ual.7; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:58:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7uiB9UIjwwfy2y8NxotSSX+q78NDthnMySPzAEu3Jes=; b=dKJx3YvnuP8DcG6AwC3NcbuewuBnI00xsyXmJ9icN5wlakcKfb8sgVUBxPYs62qcH4 hYLtCPfxyiniECi8g3l63eVAgrAxfx8wbxHYTiqwv2yeQH8KI/SxrqoiqubfMLUOy9zB iFL0Dn53flpQ/A40YZIK2uHqS0QMWNMKXolzqgm1iSGv07ZqmEhZGec0CPBGRNyWv1n6 iww7q+1vfrCg9Z1c4xNgbeInEgf5M5JT10htTXOx6IZDQZxmFQFrBtd1Az1Asl9aLs24 rJHrL+OUQq1ErJXK6+m2eShkFrb/33CZ0d1TrRWLpquee/WY5mstcf+043QiU5DzjPug Majg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7uiB9UIjwwfy2y8NxotSSX+q78NDthnMySPzAEu3Jes=; b=cQY1Gs57bA93NRWUGqdH1XvI/0dLQ97LyAqnx7eQx0xivCxEOZFGdKFg3VsPCMC2Jk KhgcXTD6RT+SzYWPWLsIuAYLQjoaaC3sPi2XXKdc58Nrvr8nM2AN1kiuuQxobopl+CzO eFyNv0qf8FE4qx33QwxQVVF14yslZe/kFnWlQiikPirpcOzL6/IAgjcMeGHdtzMVMfS8 wC0MdmKxwvTJbAtn5Mx/cnQn6qiZIGdlgDwFdVVTkwAlID8a8ZWtKQM5wABgDTAsIuxp 232wHNIfhqeRoxG2wG0KrTBSwV42K5aigqwlSaOo0IxQZusj7UN8Qh3tryGCBrb+KzgT nvMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gqfJf7oAbe83lovX5l5C3flJLc0x/e9kKtAGPOzoMudYGhczs XfSiANJsxABVF9Zg2b4hcSGkCw7ztVVC5ODYQYVo025UjcQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzbgznSFhLErOvfBRhh9wUDKbD8jNq1H0L/93UWbXwSFb6MXrbV3BnpdCkQ5BZkGi6/ZEDDjhj6T3p8X2iJB8A=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:74c2:: with SMTP id f2mr86431392uaq.21.1637600329468; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:58:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163736211767.4352.4769047562362958995@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMMESswUhBmO3y_23JRO3_B9C_xGAo3jttbmjGaK5r_B7ye88Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswUhBmO3y_23JRO3_B9C_xGAo3jttbmjGaK5r_B7ye88Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:58:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxTvh7rBiot8hK6o2DuHJT2i3JS2McQvY16Q1_1Ft8VjQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec0cef05d163894c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mW_ZA6A_dxDChNCrt8NC1AEigB0>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-03: (with DISCUSS)
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: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:00:11 -0000

Thanks Alvaro.

I removed the DISCUSS.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 7:17 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On November 19, 2021 at 5:48:38 PM, Martin Duke wrote:
>
> Martin:
>
> Hi!
>
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I'm having trouble seeing how we got here; this registry architecture is
> > hard to understand, and past actions appear to violate RFC 3692.
> >
> > 1. RFC7153 designated 0x80-0x8f as experimental and then immediately
> defines
> > 0x80 as the gateway to a further subregistry of FCFS/IETF review
> codepoints.
> > This does not appear to be "Reserved for Experimental Use" in the RFC
> 3692
> > sense, in that it is not meant to be used only by explicit experiments.
> (It's a
> > standards track document).
> >
> > 2. RFC8955 compounds it by taking another 2 (of 15 remaining!)
> experimental
> > codepoints in a standards-track document, for a similar purpose.
> >
> > I agree with this draft's reclassification of the 3 codepoints, as it
> > recognizes reality that they are apparently no longer safe for RFC 3692
> > experiments. But I would also like to verify that this behavior will not
> > continue: future standards-track allocations, including those pointing to
> > more subtypes ("Part 4", etc), will draw from the FCFS range, not
> > Experimental.
> >
> > Furthermore, experiments (with a draft or not) that use one of these
> > experimental codepoints should be reassigned a FCFS codepoint if they
> move
> > to Standards track.
>
> That is the intent.  The allocation process has been followed for
> other BGP-related registries, and I'm sure the WG will continue to do
> so.
>
> We can't unfortunately go back and correct how the assignments were
> made to rfc5575 (which seems to have been the origin of this whole
> issue) -- so we are (finally!) cleaning it up.
>
>
> Alvaro.
>