Re: [Idr] draft-rosen-idr-extcomm-iana-00.txt

["Hyojeong Kim (hyojekim)" <[e-mail]>]

Looking at your comment below, you treat all the flowspec action extcomms
as transitive. However, RFC 5575 says that traffic-rate is a
non-transitive extended community across the AS boundary. Have you checked
about it?

Thanks,
Hyojeong

On 6/17/13 6:11 AM, "Eric Rosen (erosen)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Thanks for taking the time to read through all the tedious details!
>
>> Section 6 - should you just change title of Section 5 then?
>
>Yes, that seems like a sensible idea.
>
>> Considering this redefines every registry and has content
>> in it, maybe a note to IANA/RFC Editor to hold publication until URL
>> references to the actual re-organized IANA registries, which will be
>> more useful to future readers than stale content in Section 5.
>
>Generally an RFC is not published until the IANA actions are completed;
>there's a "waiting for IANA" state as part of the RFC Editor's workflow,
>and
>IANA always (at least in my experience) verifies with the authors that the
>proper IANA actions are being taken.
>
>> Section 5.2.2 - Section header says Transitive, Registry Name says
>> Non-Transitive?
>
>Did you mean section 5.2.10?  The registry name should say "transitive".
>
>> Section 5.2.10 - this section nor anywhere else in document talks about
>> Traffic Actions (for flow spec) which is currently referenced in BGP
>> Extended Communities registry - will it be removed from the registry or
>> should 0x07 just have a comment/reference to it's separate registry?
>
>I overlooked this one.  I think the proper way to handle it is with the
>following entry in the "BGP Generic Non-Transitive Experimental Use
>Extended Community Sub-Types" registry:
>
>    0x07         Flow spec traffic-action (Use of the Value field is
>defined
>                 in the "Traffic Actions Field" registry.)
>
>> Section 5.1.1 - first thought it was mistake that simpson draft had
>> full type considering all other flowspec actions are sub-type of
>> experimental, but guess this is a point to take up with those authors
>
>Looking at draft-simpson-idr-flowspec-redirect, I see it defines a
>transitive type (0x08), but it doesn't seem to define any sub-types, even
>though it requests an "extended type".  Under the proposed reorganization,
>the authors would have specify whether they want a Sub-Type registry for
>the
>second octet, or whether they want to treat the second octet as part of
>the
>value field. 
>
>> 0x06 could use standard wording of "Sub-types are defined in..."
>
>Yes, good point.
>
>> Section 5.2 - it would be easier to understand I think if you split
>> transitive and non-transitive sub-types into seperate sub-sections.
>
>I don't think that would be right, because the transitive/intransitive
>distinction is part of the Type field, not part of the Sub-Type field.  It
>should be possible for a Sub-Type registry to be shared between a
>transitive
>Type and an intransitive Type (although there are no current examples of
>that).
>
>> Section 4 - Can I suggest "Standards Action" for new Types, or at
>> least something more specific than request to IANA.
>
>Both Type registries (and the Sub-Type registries as well) have defined
>registration policies for specific value ranges.
>
>
>
>
>                  
>_______________________________________________
>Idr mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr