[Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08: (with DISCUSS)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 04 May 2020 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5105D3A0A67; Mon, 4 May 2020 15:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net, shares@ndzh.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.129.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <158863153407.23292.4827001124495737819@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 15:32:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zNIeie6irWMVTeM00cpQDPIPsHw>
Subject: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 04 May 2020 22:32:14 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Quite possibly a "discuss discuss"...)
What would the behavior be if someone was shipping an implementation that used
a point in the 128-255 range intending for the "private use" semantics, a
conflicting codepoint was assigned via FCFS, and then needed to use the feature
with conflicting codepoint in that implementation? It seems likely that we
should discuss the plausibility of such scenarios and what options are
available to handle it.