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

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 21 July 2014 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
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 ADF1D1B2D44; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:41:23 -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 xpWZBm7bziM8; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC1F81B2DE6; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-b347.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b347.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s6LCfCMi039947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:41:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <53CD0A68.7080907@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:41:12 -0400
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints@tools.ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <53CBD1B9.7080800@nostrum.com> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23E7AAD6@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <53CBDCB4.8020807@nostrum.com> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23E7B060@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23E7B060@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/_lfUkyJ69AGHtLsWsdTTdQzIKcs
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: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:41:23 -0000

Thanks Les -


> Robert -
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 8:14 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints@tools.ietf.org;
>> isis-wg@ietf.org; General Area Review Team
>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Gen-art LC review draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/14, 11:04 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>> Robert -
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert
>> Sparks
>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:27 AM
>>>> To: draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints@tools.ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org;
>> General
>>>> Area Review Team
>>>> Subject: [Isis-wg] Gen-art LC review draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
>>>>
>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>>
>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>
>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>>> you may receive.
>>>>
>>>> Document: draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
>>>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>>>> Review Date: 20-Jul-2014
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 25-Jul-2014
>>>> IESG Telechat date: 7-Aug-2014
>>>>
>>>> Summary: Basically ready for publication, but with process nits for the
>>>> group and the IESG to consider
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>     Les
>
>>> 2)It defines procedures for early allocation of codepoints from the above
>> registry.
>>> While an argument could be made that this portion should be BCP, the fact
>> that it is combined with #1 requires that the document be Standards track.
>>>> Should this Update any of the RFCs that previously defined these
>> registries?
>>> Yes - it updates the following RFCs: 5130, 5311
>> The  document header (and abstract) should be updated to indicate that.
>>>      Les
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Isis-wg mailing list
>>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg