Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Fred,

Did you read my original email below about RFC 7120 ? Notably the part about "sufficient interest", which I translate as "at the bare minimum be an adopted document".

Regards

-éric


From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 11 November 2022 at 15:12
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)" <juzuniga=[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

Eric, please excuse me but the presentations by Donald Eastlake and Bob Moskowitz strike
a very close parallel to what is being asked in the Section 25 IANA Considerations of OMNI.
I have always been told that getting IANA actions is very hard, but Donald and Bob are
making it look extremely simple. So, I would like for it to be similarly easy for OMNI.

I would be happy if you and/or the intarea chairs would look over Section 25 of the OMNI
draft and make assignments for the protocol numbers and reservations there. Permanent
reservations would be preferred, but RFC7120-style temporary is acceptable if that is all
that can be done for the time being. Is that something that can be done?

Thank you,

Fred

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 2:12 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) <juzuniga=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

Fred,

Your email has several questions that I am repeating below:

Q1: full IETF blessing for SCHC now puts AERO/OMNI at a competitive disadvantage ?

As written in my previous email, it is not about either SCHC or AERO/OMNI.

Q2: Does it need to be broken out into a small companion draft the way SCHC did it?

Unsure what you mean by the above question, but the main SCHC work is done in LPWAN and Bob's small I-D for an IP protocol is in intarea because it cannot be done in LPWAN per LPWAN charter. Common process at the IETF.

Hope this clarifies

-éric


From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, 10 November 2022 at 16:07
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)" <juzuniga=[e-mail]<mailto:juzuniga=[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

Eric, OMNI already has UDP port number but it also needs 1) an IP protocol number,
2) an IEEE Ethernet EtherType and 3) an IPv6 ND option number. These are the same
things SCHC is asking for (minus the IPv6 ND), and to hear Bob describe it sounds like
for the same or very similar reasons. Which makes me wonder whether providing a
full IETF blessing for SCHC now puts AERO/OMNI at a competitive disadvantage? Or,
if the IETF is willing to extend the same codepoint allocation graces to AERO/OMNI
now then that would address the concern.

The OMNI draft has a properly-formed IANA considerations where the necessary
codepoint allocations are requested. Does it need to be broken out into a small
companion draft the way SCHC did it?

Fred

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) <juzuniga=[e-mail]<mailto:juzuniga=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.


Fred,

IANA has enough code points for SCHC over IP/Ethernet/UDP and for OMNI (NDP code point if I remember correctly). I.e., this not one or the other. And SCHC early allocation (if any) won't block/prevent any other allocations.

Moreover, per RFC 7120 section 2 point d)
   d.  The Working Group chairs and Area Directors (ADs) judge that
       there is sufficient interest in the community for early (pre-RFC)
       implementation and deployment, or that failure to make an early
       allocation might lead to contention for the code point in the
       field.

I.e., early allocation will be done for adopted documents where there is a clear interest.

Hope this clarifies

Regards,

-éric

From: Int-area <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 9 November 2022 at 16:11
To: "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)" <juzuniga=[e-mail]<mailto:juzuniga=[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

I want to understand whether granting these allocations for SCHC would prevent
OMNI from receiving exactly the same three allocation types. If so, then we need
to ask the question of whether the codepoints should go to SCHC or OMNI. In my
view, OMNI should get the codepoints.

Fred

From: Int-area <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 8:07 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.


Hi IntArea WG,

Today we had an interesting discussion about the future of draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00.
We would like to ask Bob Moskowitz et al. to upload a revised I-D with the text about the EtherType and UDP port numbers.

Once we have that draft published, we will re-confirm our call for adoption, and then we will proceed to coordinate with tsvwg as discussed.

Best,

Juan-Carlos & Wassim
(IntArea chairs)