Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 23 October 2019 14:50 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmW+XgBaYvOnKzfYiN63=JSf9Ckpe4Ga9oZtmdK+weppTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34rsYD-mt5yF1pQsxQ1E4fM-SVBp81rW_d14UpD5vfeJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34rsYD-mt5yF1pQsxQ1E4fM-SVBp81rW_d14UpD5vfeJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:49:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmX_vjX_t_6PN_+0sWO6iQdds3LehH6gFaFFR+1kbmfGXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gue@ietf.org, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009f5d9805959508ff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/jo1YshiLQgWi7bt5fCb8cyEkWvQ>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question
Precedence: list

Hi Tom,
though I'd not say "quasi-proprietary" but "well-known", you're correct. My
proposal allows the same innovation as in the current proposal for the new
registry but makes that innovation trackable, non-conflicting.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:46 AM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:44 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 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.
>
> Greg,
>
> My immediate question is would this encourage people to develop quasi
> proprietary control types? (which they would probably do anyway in
> using experimental values but wouldn't acknowledged by IANA).
>
> Tom
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
>

[Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question Greg Mirsky
Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question Bob Hinden
Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question Tom Herbert
Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question Greg Mirsky
Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question Joe Touch
Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question Greg Mirsky
Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question Tom Herbert
Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question mohamed.boucadair