Re: [ippm] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Tue, 27 April 2021 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E8B3A378B; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QV5y1hAjxTys; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A06F3A378A; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h18so2569439vsp.8; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7kiQBJpZTyUAp6SfP6RGW4Pj+ZR3pfcsK6mt57m0x8M=; b=Ln8deBw+qgzFGXvWMqWzgRg2DSdnKDsYxps+b6FHOiBxcO9jkzaEwCC3UtF+hnVSmw WVaq3neBdI6Y6Z18yhPytKQzwnMLpqBgP2ZdazOZ1y+EBJV7KcprATrXTXai0/182G+6 dPWzGI2yv90ZYl2Q5G6BS1ninWPtChXkyGFWqOHd+gS0ePXdCCpzvJK4/1nTD8+COqvd b/TD1OiUwpzdLwDv52KNjWn7BTGsKeCUOOYvdjybF5VRva+lcUO7drCDgLB/4e4/y1Il JwBegb4NXAEFZl7N+HeOUwaeQEF2O1ts6mFwywC+4rF5yzBNcKffz/9eaeuVsMuXtey5 G7eQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7kiQBJpZTyUAp6SfP6RGW4Pj+ZR3pfcsK6mt57m0x8M=; b=q+x068mxCz4AlwuLffvgeJDBseE7OD3IUBOOeoa02SoQB6LoV4M/JxwhY4ZCV+YcH9 pLKVJxO9thmdOmHt2p7MXVo4TqktPVIRDS1zR5jGQczGmwj2YgR/tLH71by5Wx5YV8gK VtVulFYp3q3iSS48ihICp7N8dqiAadlBJNzkdTIB5jIYirvEiDcrNEeGowWlNGaIlZMM YqiPFLdJRVgW9Xg9v5QDMNQpCiGY3tqr8li16y1J3YcM/CS3eF8jr3fs8WyZfGx5Byyl 2wO0KpVoPWGjxZyNKSPipeVUOOHALqqhiQzTGcBaaagNeTgq3MnxEVYbHlzvoYKks3l5 Aefg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533J8Rn5wpHuXH+iiAVtKS/fPKnwY3gKfuWw6QHKjeyPyT44s1x1 +4q/wimmzKZDm50LJdw74KjbBFy1e4cAonvE35w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyF7dsDSvIWwpsWEIzjbGosQL00PomDVe+sqNLa0+RLK9FH5jdtlo72BkCR0QEzkCucv7tSIBO4w7einGiwdc=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ed4e:: with SMTP id m14mr16245924vsp.40.1619483501474; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:31:30 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <>
Cc: The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Al Morton <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d3374005c0e9621e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:31:49 -0000

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:19 AM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <> wrote:

> > In Section 8:
> >
> >    New registries in this group can be created via RFC Required process
> >    as per [RFC8126].
> >
> > Is there any other way to get IANA to create a sub-registry?
> ...FB: Francesca suggested to use “IETF Review”  ” instead of "RFC
> required", which very much reflects the way things are currently done in
> IPPM GW. The current work to define additional Flags, Option-Types, etc.
> are all following the “IETF Review” process already, i.e., there are
> working group drafts in IPPM for those. It would be very straight forward
> and even more natural to change to “IETF Review”. Given that Francesca
> suggested the change, the plan was to switch to “IETF Review” in the next
> revision. Would that work for you?

Hi Frank,

My comment wasn't about the registries themselves, which can have any
policy you like, but rather this specific sentence about creating new
sub-registries in this group.  I don't think I've ever seen a declaration
that sub-registries can be created in any manner other than publication of
a new RFC.  So what I was really asking is whether the sentence I cited
here is even needed.