Re: [Isis-wg] Gen-art LC review draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 07 August 2014 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCA41A03B4; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 18:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 LBKTHvXQcxt7; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843531A03AE; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894022CC5F; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 04:24:20 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yVCVUQGGpfDp; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 04:24:16 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD182CC48; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 04:24:12 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E7D44622-CCFC-47BA-81F6-70D4CE672784"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <44FBCF2A-1E0B-41B6-A9A2-5266AF1F596F@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 13:24:08 +1200
Message-Id: <ABF26F8B-EF91-4DD7-B570-AD4FF84AFA5E@piuha.net>
References: <53CBD1B9.7080800@nostrum.com> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23E7AAD6@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <53CBDCB4.8020807@nostrum.com> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23E7B060@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <53CD0A68.7080907@nostrum.com> <44FBCF2A-1E0B-41B6-A9A2-5266AF1F596F@piuha.net>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/LkZ-tVVCI21BLKoWpRvYqyI86fw
Cc: "Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints@tools.ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Gen-art LC review draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 01:24:24 -0000

(Resending due to incorrect e-mail address - please respond to this instead.)

Thank you very much for your review, Robert.

>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for assembling such a clearly written document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The shepherd writeup should have discussed _why_ this document is
>>>>> intended for Proposed Standard.
>>>>> There is no protocol definition here, and nothing to progress on the
>>>>> standards ladder. This is, instead,
>>>>> primarily defining process. Why isn't this being progressed as a BCP?
>>>> The document does two things:
>>>> 
>>>> 1)It updates some registries for sub-TLVs defined at
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-
>>> codepoints.xhtml
>>>> As these changes are modifying the format (not the content) of registries
>>> used by a number of standards track RFCs it needs to be a standards track
>>> document.
>>> I don't believe that follows. A BCP could update these documents as well.
>> The registries define the codepoints which are sent on the wire by IS-IS implementations. This is absolutely essential for interoperability. I fail to follow your reasoning that a change to such a registry falls into the BCP bucket.
>> 
>> That said, I don't really care about the category - my goal in writing this draft is to satisfy the process requirements to get what amount to editorial changes to the registry done. In this matter I am happy to follow the recommendations from IANA/IESG, Gen-ART, etc. So let's not argue - rather please build consensus with your peers in IANA/IESG as well as the ADs and I will happily agree so long as it accomplishes the original goal.
> Yes - the IESG can steer this at this point.

With regards to the document-as-ps issue, I think we can observe that new or changed IANA considerations have been done under various document classifications. I personally can not get worked over whether this is a BCP or a PS, albeit, as Pete notes, "Slightly weird to have this be Standards Track.”. I think having the texts clarified as Adrian suggested in his Discuss is probably the most worthwhile thing we can do here.

jari