[Idr] FSM registry names (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fsm-iana-00)
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 31 May 2024 16:34 UTC
Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 6D0CEC14F70B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2024 09:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.762
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.762 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_SHORT_SPOOFED_URL=0.124, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mk01BmxKrdM1 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2024 09:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E323AC14F711 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2024 09:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (172-125-100-52.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [172.125.100.52]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A2E21E039; Fri, 31 May 2024 12:34:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4842C0C9-713E-4496-8BBA-7FB972910DEB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.8\))
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 12:34:37 -0400
Message-Id: <F7E2145A-3A1B-45F9-9ED2-EAEDFE1DC3D2@pfrc.org>
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.8)
Message-ID-Hash: GOZ4UHJXB565L6SUTKHXGPYOK4VTN2BN
X-Message-ID-Hash: GOZ4UHJXB565L6SUTKHXGPYOK4VTN2BN
X-MailFrom: jhaas@pfrc.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] FSM registry names (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fsm-iana-00)
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qAlZpmQo7VOx-6RC7BSOpPtFCZo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>
This thread is to keep the adoption comments separate from work on the draft. During adoption, it was pointed out the registry names could use some clarification, along with their location. The two things raised were: 1. Should this be a sub-registry of something like bgp-parameters? 2. The names should be clear such that they sort in IANA's main registry list: https://www.iana.org/protocols My recommendation would be that the registry should stay top level. I also agree with the points raised above about names that sort better. The following pull request attempts to address 2. https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fsm-iana/pull/6 <https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fsm-iana/pull/6> For those not using github, an rfcdiff is attached. Note that the redundant abbreviation is placed as "BGP-4" to try to future proof us vs. bgp-5, or similar. If you have an opinion on this topic, please respond in-thread or in github. -- Jeff (hopefully a short-lived thread)