Re: [Idr] WG Last Call on Proposed IANA procedures for BGP Well-known communities

Brian,

> >> Basically, what is missing, in addition to some formalization of
> >> the process, is the ability to use RFC 4020 Early IANA Assignments,
> >> from which early work can progress from draft, to initial implementation,
> >> to multi-vendor implementation, to working group consensus. The
> >> whole "consensus and running code" thing, which I absolutely agree
> >> with, particularly in the IDR area (where, more than anywhere else,
> >> interoperability is "it").
> >>     
> >
> > Here is a quote from Dave's proposal:
> >
> >    I am proposing a 50/50 split of the upper range of currently  
> >    reserved space between the "First Come First Served" policy  
> >    defined in RFC 2434 and those assigned by IANA using  either the  
> >    Standards Action process defined in RFC 2434, or the Early IANA  
> >    Allocation process defined in RFC 4020.
> >
> > So, as you can see, Dave's proposal *does* include the ability
> > to use RFC4020 Early IANA Allocation.
> >
> > Yakov.
> >   
> 
> The language in Dave's proposal is a tiny bit ambiguous/confusing. Not 
> necessarily by design, but merely because of limitations of the English 
> language when compound sentences are parsed.
> 
> Basically, it isn't clear from the proposal language itself, whether 
> what is proposed specifically endorses use of both 2434 *and* 4020 
> for the process of having IANA assign values.
> 
> I'd like to see the proposed text (i.e. the literal text that the IDR WG 
> proposes to send to IANA), just so that any ambiguities over how it 
> could be interpreted, are clarified prior to sending it.
> 
> And, of course, in resolving the ambiguity, obviously I am interested in 
> confirmation that we really do mean "both", e.g.:
> 
> "The range 0xFFFF8000 to 0xFFFFFFFF is to be assigned by IANA, and 
> requests for IANA assignments are permitted via the process defined 
> in RFC 2434, as well as by the process defined in RFC 4020."
> 
> (So, yes, I did in fact see the reference to 4020, but just want it much 
> clearer, so that it says what we mean.)
> 
> Brian

How about the following:

   Here is the current definition of the space:

   0x0000000-0x0000FFFF     Reserved
   0xFFFFFF01         NO_EXPORT  [RFC1997]
   0xFFFFFF02         NO_ADVERTISE [RFC1997]
   0xFFFFFF03         NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED [RFC1997]
   0xFFFFFF04          NOPEER  [RFC3765]
   0xFFFF0000-0xFFFFFFFF           Reserved

   Proposal of redefinition of 0xFFFF0000-0xFFFFFFFF space:

   Range                    Registration Procedures                  
   -----------            ---------------------------------------   
   0xFFFF0000-0xFFFF8000   First Come First Served
   0xFFFF8001-0xFFFFFFF    Standards Action/Early IANA Allocation

Yakov.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr