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

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

Christoph,

thank you very much. I've cleared my DISCUSS.

-m

Le 2021-11-23 à 12:33, Christoph Loibl a écrit :
> Martin,
> 
> I uploaded a -04 of this draft that now also updates RFC 8955.
> 
> This new version also resolves your grammar COMMENT.
> 
> Cheers Christoph
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Loibl
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | 
> http://www.nextlayer.at
> 
> 
> 
>> On 22.11.2021, at 18:57, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Christoph:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> This works for me.  Martin has the DISCUSS, so it is his decision.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>> On November 22, 2021 at 5:07:40 AM, Christoph Loibl ([e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
>>
>>> Martin, Alvaro!
>>>
>>> Thank you for your review.
>>>
>>> According to your conversation I suggest the following changes to the 
>>> document. (If there are no objections I will upload a -04 tomorrow)
>>>
>>> Cheers Christoph.
>>>
>>> INTRODUCTION, paragraph 1:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>   IDR Working Group                                               C. Loibl
>>>   Internet-Draft                                   next layer Telekom GmbH
>>>   Updates: 7153 (if approved)                              13 October 2021
>>>   Intended status: Standards Track
>>>   Expires: 16 April 2022
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>   IDR Working Group                                               C. Loibl
>>>   Internet-Draft                                   next layer Telekom GmbH
>>>   Updates: 7153 8955 (if approved)                        22 November 2021
>>>   Intended status: Standards Track
>>>   Expires: 26 May 2022
>>>
>>>
>>> INTRODUCTION, paragraph 5:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>      This document updates RFC7153.
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>      This document updates RFC7153 and RFC8955.
>>>
>>> Section 1., paragraph 2:
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>      Section 2 of this document requests the registry cleanup to reflect
>>>      the actual use of those code-points (removing "Experimental Use" from
>>>      the sub-type registry names) and changes the registration procedure
>>>      of the types 0x80, 0x81, 0x82 to use the First Come First Served
>>>      policy [RFC8126] and thus updates [RFC7153].
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>      Section 2 of this document requests the registry cleanup to reflect
>>>      the actual use of those code-points (removing "Experimental Use" from
>>>      the sub-type registry names) and changes the registration procedure
>>>      of the types 0x80, 0x81, 0x82 to use the First Come First Served
>>>      policy [RFC8126] and thus updates [RFC7153] and [RFC8955].
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Christoph Loibl
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | 
>>> http://www.nextlayer.at <http://www.nextlayer.at/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 19.11.2021, at 17:29, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On November 18, 2021 at 7:22:36 PM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin:
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the review!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your work.
>>>>> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why doesn't this document 
>>>>> update
>>>>> 8955 just like it updates 7153? I'm asking because your document 
>>>>> modifies the
>>>>> allocation policy of the 0x80-0x8F range, as well as the names of 
>>>>> 0x80, 0x81,
>>>>> 0x82 (and of their sub-types registries), and at the same time it 
>>>>> seems to me
>>>>> that 7153 covers the allocation policy of the 0x80-0x8F range but 
>>>>> only 0x80
>>>>> (and its sub-type registry), while it's 8955 which seems to cover 
>>>>> 0x81 and
>>>>> 0x82 (and their sub-types registries).
>>>>
>>>> rfc8955 inherited the references to the registries by Obsoleting
>>>> rfc7674 and rfc5575.  I didn't think at the time that we needed an
>>>> Update, but I see your point and have no objection to adding rfc8955
>>>> to the Updated list.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Alvaro.
>