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

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