Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00
"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Mon, 11 February 2013 21:15 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9932F21F8AB7; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:15:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1iDyPgWm39te; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E1821F890D; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:15:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3284; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360617329; x=1361826929; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=a1Py4EaY96o5jDaOhxGfxf5qljf8W6c68Lh+5kgri/A=; b=EUfOfspUVTCiDuuxU9y7dE+16MWVqu357V3SyPhz9C799xq4/q3H8tv6 52vpQlDP9uX+/ZcmjcENJBC9eJpxq73VSI6DpRwcxTUq13bO3pLOjW/l+ EhtKG2zh/KaO8zAcTsTFHgIfwgkmqyvCQ5HO77SRqKa6cR+rbk7KTkCdE I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAMNdGVGtJXG//2dsb2JhbAA6CsEkFnOCIQEEOj8SAQgUDhRCJQIEAQ0FCIgKDMAdjUeDZWEDkmqEV482gwaCJA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,644,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="172902479"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2013 21:15:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1BLFTAX017510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:15:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.213]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:15:28 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <akr@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00
Thread-Index: AQHN9DdZ9OjrkRsEWE2bqOnRv2sH7Zh1YiiA
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:15:28 +0000
Message-ID: <BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94ED42270@xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD0EC318-1015-41ED-8E0B-045D6EB258F9@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.221.163]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F109AA3999EA91469817701ACBF6E83E@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update.all@tools.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org List" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:15:30 -0000
On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: Ben: Hi! Sorry for the delay, my filters put this in a different place.. I'm explicitly adding the OSPF chairs. Comments below. >I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > ><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >you may receive. > >Document: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00 >Reviewer: Ben Campbell >Review Date: 2013-01-16 >IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-24 > >Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a proposed standard. >There is a significant IANA registration issue described in the review >body. > >Major issues: > >This draft carves out a significant part of a registry with an assignment >policy of "standards action" for "private use". It offers very little >motivation for the change. In my opinion, this sort of change should come >with a clear justification. > >Specifically, the draft modifies the OSPFv3 Address Family Instance ID >registry to carve out half of the unassigned space for "private use". The >justification for this is a single sentence saying that some networks >need to use IIDs to identify specific applications. I think that needs >significant elaboration in order to motivate the change in a way that the >reader can evaluate. > >My understanding from the OFPS list is that this is in support of >draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, which is an informational >draft. I have to wonder why the draft under review was not simply the >IANA considerations for that draft. > >I suggest one of two paths forward: > >1) If this change is in support of that draft in particular, then this >draft should say that, and include a _normative_ reference. I recognize >the normative downref would complicate things--but I think that >complication is reasonable under the circumstances. > >2) If this change is to support a general need that goes beyond >draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, then this draft should >describe that need in enough detail for people to think about it, perhaps >with an informative reference to >draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as an _example_. In short (from the shepherd write-up): "The new range is for applications that do not justify a standards track OSPFv3 Instance ID allocation. An example would be "Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets"". During pre-publication review, the WG chairs asked us to not include explicit references to draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as that is just an example and not the only potential user/driver. I don't have a problem adding an example, but I want to get agreement/comments/guidance from the chairs before adding the text. Acee/Abhay?? > > >Minor issues: > >-- section 3: > >I don't think it's appropriate to use normative language for IANA >requests. Especially not "MUST". (I think the strongest thing we can do >here is a polite request :-) ) I suggest recasting that to descriptive >language, and removing section 2 and the RFC 2119 reference. Yes, we already removed that in the -01 version. Thanks!! Alvaro.
- Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-r… Ben Campbell
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-i… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-i… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-i… Acee Lindem
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-i… Stewart Bryant