Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, 15 is the only new type at the moment.
But the existence of a request for new types raises the point that there 
may well be others.  So creating a registry seems the right thing to do. 
  Since the registry needs to allow experimental entries (the current 
protocol), it seems that we are better served getting it established now.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/30/17 5:10 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Joel:
>
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> To clarify, there are two Registries being defined: LISP Packet Types
> and Sub-Types.
>
>
>
> I don’t have an issue with the Sub-Types registry, which is the one that
> allows you to get new functionality up and going, with or without an RFC
> – it currently has a FCFS registration policy.  Maybe a little too open,
> but if this is what the WG wants, then I’m ok with it.
>
>
>
> The LISP Packet Types Registry is the one I have an issue with being
> defined in this document.  It seems like the main motivation of the
> document is the new LISP Shared Extension Message Type, and that
> creating the registry only serves to assign type 15 to it.  But any
> other extensions would make use of the Sub-Types registry, and not this one.
>
>
>
> Maybe I’m missing the subtleties of which space is used for what...
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
>
>
>     On 1/30/17, 4:52 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     With regard to status, I think we can work with you.
>
>     But we really want to establish the registry now.
>
>     We already have proposals for code points beyond the experimental RFCs,
>
>     and requests for room to experiment without writing an RFC.
>
>
>
>     As far as I can tell, the Working Group intent is that the registry
>
>     allow reservation by experimental and informational RFCs, not just
>
>     standards track RFCs.  We can fix that.
>
>
>
>     With regard to the revision to the base documents, to get them on the
>
>     standards track, one of the important fixes is to stop claiming that
>     the
>
>     RFC defines all the values, and just update the registry entries where
>
>     appropriate to reference the new RFC (once we have it.)
>
>
>
>     The rush is simply that it is already getting hard to keep track.  We
>
>     should have established a registry in the first place.  So we are doing
>
>     so now.
>
>
>
>
>
>     On 1/30/17 4:46 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>
>         Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>
>         draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-04: Discuss
>
>
>
>         When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
>         to all
>
>         email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>         cut this
>
>         introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
>
>
>         Please refer to
>         https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>
>         for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>
>
>
>         The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         DISCUSS:
>
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>         I have a couple of points I think we should DISCUSS before
>         moving this
>
>         document forward: the intended status and the definition of the
>
>         registry.
>
>
>
>         (1) Intended Status: The Datatracker indicates that the Intended RFC
>
>         status for this document is Proposed Standard (as does the Shepherd
>
>         WriteUp and the IETF LC), but the header on the document says
>
>         Experimental.  I note that the document header was changed after a
>
>         discussion on the WG list resulting from the RTG Directorate
>         review [1],
>
>         but that happened after the WGLC.  Which is the right status?
>
>
>
>         (2) LISP Packet Types Registry Definition: It seems very odd to
>         me that
>
>         the LISP Packet Types Registry uses Standard Action as the
>         registration
>
>         policy given that the LISP work is currently Experimental -- and
>         that the
>
>         other references in it would in fact be from an Experimental RFC
>
>         (rfc6380).  I know there's work on rfc6830bis (in the Standards
>         Track),
>
>         but I think it would be better to have this registry defined in
>         the base
>
>         specification (rfc6833bis, in this case)...or to wait for the
>         publication
>
>         of that document to progress this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>         I think there's nothing procedurally wrong with having an
>         Experimental
>
>         RFC define a Standard Action Registry and populate part of it with
>
>         references to Experimental RFC.  However, the solution just
>         doesn't seem
>
>         clean to me -- so I would like to hear the justification for the
>         rush
>
>         (and not waiting for rfc6380bis/rfc6388bis).
>
>
>
>         I have no issue with a document making use of the Code Point to
>         describe
>
>         the new LISP Shared Extension Message Type (without creating the
>
>         Registry).  But given that the base LISP specification is still
>
>         Experimental, then this document should be too.  There shouldn't
>         be an
>
>         issue with changing the Status of this document (in-place) once
>
>         rfc6380bis/rfc6388bis progress.
>
>
>
>
>
>         There's also the issue that RFC6830 (and rfc6833bis) contain the
>
>         following text: "This section will be the authoritative source for
>
>         allocating LISP Type values..."   Which means that (if the
>         registry is to
>
>         be defined here), this document should at least Update RFC6830...
>
>
>
>         In summary, I think that the correct Status for this document is
>
>         Experimental.  I also think that it would be better to wait for
>
>         rfc6833bis to define the Registry.
>
>
>
>
>
>         [1]
>
>         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/m1EicCexdX1GI183pba-mcHJM7g/?qid=ada479dce3c434bfaf948b0ee8240996
>
>
>
>
>
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         COMMENT:
>
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>         a. The Introduction justifies the extension as being used for
>
>         experiments: "Because of the limited type space [RFC6830] and
>         the need to
>
>         conduct experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this document
>
>         specifies a shared LISP extension message type".  It seems clear
>         later in
>
>         the text that the intent of the new message type is not just for
>
>         experimentation, but that in fact the intent is for new
>         functionality to
>
>         be deployed using it.  Is that correct?  If it is, then please
>         make it
>
>         clear -- if not, then I would like to see how the authors propose a
>
>         transition to happen between the experimental space and the
>         production
>
>         one.
>
>
>
>         b. The IANA Considerations Section says that "The value 15 is
>         reserved
>
>         for Experimental Use [RFC5226]."  But it is being assigned to
>         the new
>
>         LISP Shared Extension Message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>