IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 23 October 2019 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7DA1208DC; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WdJ797bUnjs6; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DC70120904; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q64so21163361ljb.12; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9tEsd5EO2DZNN7ptlISAJsEqp9BJCf6VfeUzjluW3Mg=; b=hJsLrXhEFZsGjo/dV2Kh8dBhIUw07w4dD5Jyl3/aIO2QPcbYh87SzJ5z2w4Q/mQ/CX kUIJdmtDrBH0TfniMot6Q3EoYWe/fXoowyf58UtV5jgp8iVVIn2XOVB4uqt4cvjc8jJp sfpaYM4QtfUIJ0/uJ+suRXRuVBH56oY1JHPHN91f//BD3eStTkqVKMLH++0yHgStyNpd +QlwJu3xG0pMQ2THpnmaETKFf+I6GJ16dPwjb+G9N8+Xc2EOkNt804IADNl+3smqn/CK WbxmQl78FRjFTK8CScdn3HASULc8E7KSkUqpbsfuF+pDRNTGTE7YG54TzCvaHIPBm16W PwdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9tEsd5EO2DZNN7ptlISAJsEqp9BJCf6VfeUzjluW3Mg=; b=IXyJASQ2ZOPMYKKQGoD1cUEe3Q3wept5LCYwlvL4Lm508e3y5JTv5K614WUDZpDS4y xxclUq7OiyLDeSbH9gVkT/OcUClcFSllCWI9zOoCAvHCpulZDGdlsYWJW0JhydnWQIsD LuOhFG0XL7cWQf5UbGIpK5PRFOLlP8gEfPTWr97DjNI8FDNcZY0CbZ1MZooYGpo9jY8D AM5cV28wnWp10y1BtnP19ykHHc8E/tQ8uJF7gKbg2KrhJpH06Zk7BIkyH/z1VBXh7N50 IQQpaE1MlQKeQIP0IGooHfWq53BYPzWPAhYmzZw6O0BvbjYYRAHmT/Ew8P9z8m/CfkJp c5Yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWnhjl7RG21e0QB5RBHQsQABitUZx2u4ELy7ilR7s5dNt/rY+gA BAwsF2YP4ydUypB1QaS7Nnjr0EFnWNPHRw7Egph3IXbYQes=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxb4xfyhlp7o/Ikg6RSMWtM1LELGKQQA8QLB9lD72uSPbtdaIEe0x7V+M4xhYlHPWV/GpzdjqhLs8DUsqyPGZw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a0d6:: with SMTP id f22mr22971193ljm.74.1571838277016; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:44:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmW+XgBaYvOnKzfYiN63=JSf9Ckpe4Ga9oZtmdK+weppTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-intarea-gue@ietf.org, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002561530595941eb0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/VQ6o1OCoCe2v9yqREnyP17l6P2g>
Subject: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:44:41 -0000

Dear Authors, et al.,
I have a rather benign question the new registry requested in Section 8.3.
The draft states that the whole 1-127 range is "RFC required" per RFC 5226.
Firstly, a nit - RFC 5226 has been obsoleted by RFC 8126. My question is
Would you agree to split the 128-255 range and set First Come First Served
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.4> sub-range. For example:

      +----------------+------------------+---------------+
      |  Control type  | Description      | Reference     |
      +----------------+------------------+---------------+
      | 0              | Control payload  | This document |
      |                | needs more       |               |
      |                | context for      |               |
      |                | interpretation   |               |
      |                |                  |               |
      | 1..127         | Unassigned       |               |
      |                |                  |               |
      | 128..250       | First Come       | RFC 8126      |
      |                | First Served     |               |
      | 251..254       | Experimental     | This document |
      |                |                  |               |
      | 255            | Reserved         | This document |
      |                |                  |               |
      +----------------+------------------+---------------+

Also, you may consider updating 0 as Reserved and assigning 1 as Control
payload ...
Much appreciate your consideration.

Regards,
Greg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email