Re: [lisp] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Mon, 13 October 2014 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FABF1A8A79 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 06:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.823
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FRT_FOLLOW1=1.332, FRT_FOLLOW2=0.422, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
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 GOHjtS6eq3qW for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 06:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ia-mailgw.apnic.net (ia-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:851::25]) (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 1D48B1A8A9F for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 06:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:return-path; bh=SMmPXYtRIYoo/gZ4IPFBgNW9tdmnTtloZ/5ucMxpraQ=; b=HllBSiBxHwQh7dVBqfRMLyDex2cmRc40r85QIvbppvxCXVkfJS5lF9Zy6TJID6ICDspFxks12RKpu mWfJYQJiHIGP6BOglfZmnhyZoJtBQoPM3ZAWe8NmphwK07LgKhZdRpaKbyFrzQJfUHwecf9Pzl2P8I JDz/aROtkj50oZA8=
Received: from NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (unknown [203.119.101.249]) by ia-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:27:03 +1000 (EST)
Received: from [172.20.1.217] (203.119.101.249) by NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (203.119.107.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:27:05 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <81F32DC0-F062-4303-8C54-6E93B2612785@gigix.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:27:00 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <175FC433-58AA-4803-A520-95392E720A39@apnic.net>
References: <543538A8.30405@joelhalpern.com> <20141008111526504441.351ecc0f@sniff.de> <54358282.30905@joelhalpern.com> <20141008114923108851.765e002a@sniff.de> <543587CA.5070105@joelhalpern.com> <20141008134017695204.f47759dc@sniff.de> <81F32DC0-F062-4303-8C54-6E93B2612785@gigix.net>
To: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/AjNe6gPcFzH_gL4HtIwQXinix50
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-02
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:27:10 -0000

As promised, here are some comments on Section 5

1. replace "Allocation" with "Registration"

As I noted in the last note, the terms "allocation" and "Assignment"
are hopelessly overloaded, and best avoided, as the distinction
is really irrelevant here,


    5.  EID Prefix Registration Requirements

2. are you talking about the registry or the registered end users?

reword the section as folllows:


   All EID prefix registrations should be made according to the
   following technical constraints:


   1.  All EID prefix registrations MUST use a globally unique EID prefix.

   2.  If there is more than one registry operator, all operators MUST use the
       same registry management policies and practices.

   3.  The EID Prefix registration information as specified in Section 6, MUST be collected upon initial registration and renewal, and made publicly
       available though interfaces allowing both retrieval of specific registration details (search)
       and enumeration of the entire registry contents.

(enumeration is a tricky topic - in an experimental context I think it helps with the experiment, but
your mileage may differ)

I suggest dropping 4 - it heads into over-specification, and this is not a services contract nor a SLA specification.

|   4.  The registration information service should be reasonably
|       reliable so to make such information readily available.  The
|       allocation service SHOULD be provided during regular business
|       hours in venue in which the allocation service is housed.


5 is ambiguous - do you want reverse or not? Lets say "yes"


   4.  The registry operator MUST permit the delegation of EID prefixes
       in the reverse DNS space to holders of registered EID prefixes.

6 is the "non-discrimination" clause isn't. Anyone can obtain a registration, on the understanding that the
prefix so registered is for the exclusive use in the LISP experimental network, and that their registration
details (as specified in section 6) are openly published in the EID prefix registry.

So why not say that?

    5. Anyone can obtain an entry in the EID prefix registry, on the understanding that the
       prefix so registered is for the exclusive use in the LISP experimental network, and 
       that their registration details (as specified in section 6) are openly published in the
       EID prefix registry.



Geoff