Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 23 March 2021 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 470E53A15A3; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 9GqWfjW2XpwY; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 E48493A15A1; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 12NKhthY003538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 16:44:00 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:43:54 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: "'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, "'Susan Hares'" <shares@ndzh.com>, "'Jie Dong'" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
Message-ID: <20210323204354.GX79563@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <161652922871.32321.1505404099537514178@ietfa.amsl.com> <0c7501d72024$b27766c0$17663440$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0c7501d72024$b27766c0$17663440$@olddog.co.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owmr1RNBgIaD_7Cil3nxibCoPhQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:44:14 -0000

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 08:39:59PM +0000, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> > This document changes the registration policy to "Expert Review" which,
> > as even quoted in this document, "has no requirement for a formal
> > document".  Yet the specific guidance to the expert is written as if
> > there will always be a document
> 
> Yeah, that's right.
> 
> According to 8126
> 
>    The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance
>    to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the
>    registry.
> 
> That's what this document does. In other words, it takes Expert Review as the base, and then sets out the required documentation and review criteria.
> 
> > consider "[i]f the document is not
> > adopted by the IDR Working Group", "IANA will update [...] a reference
> > to the associated document", "[i]n the event that the document is", ...
> >
> > Is there a requirement for a document or not?  (Alternately, what
> > happens if there is a request with no associated document?)
> 
> There is a requirement for a document. But what is a document?
> This could be clearer 2.1. How about...
> 
> OLD
>    1.  Application for a code point allocation may be made to the
>        Designated Experts at any time.
> NEW
>    1.  Application for a code point allocation may be made to the
>        Designated Experts at any time, and MUST be accompanied
>        by technical documentation explaining the use of the code
>        point.  Such documentation SHOULD be presented in the
>        form of an Internet-Draft, but MAY arrive in any form that
>        can be reviewed and exchanged amongst reviewers.
> END

Excellent.  Thanks for the quick response; I will go clear this silly
discuss now so I don't have to worry about it anymore :)

Thanks,

Ben

> > COMMENT:
> >
> > Section 2
> >
> > The order the sub-registries are listed in here does not match the order
> > used at
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
> 
> Oh yes. I seem to have put them in alphabetic order.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>