Re: [Lsr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

[posting to keep the WG in the loop]

Hi Ketan,

As discussed in the parallel thread with Amanda @ IANA, this looks good, except that it would be a good idea to supply specific text for IANA to use as an annotation on the registry. Amanda pointed to the Note on https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-neighbor-information as an example of how to write it.

Thanks,

—John

> On Oct 6, 2022, at 10:46 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> We've posted an update of the draft with the changes as per option 1 below: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-09
> 
> Please let us know if there are any other concerns. Will also let the IANA team know of this update on the parallel thread so they can also check/review the same.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ketan
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 6:37 PM John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Ketan,
> 
> Thanks for the analysis. A few comments below.
> 
> > On Oct 6, 2022, at 8:30 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi John/Lars,
> > 
> > I hope this topic can be discussed in the upcoming telechat to conclude on the option to be adopted.
> > 
> > To make it easier, let me provide a pointer to the text for each inline below. I am not sure that I understand option 3 very well.
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 9:42 PM John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > (To keep everyone in the loop since you weren’t all on the cc of the IANA review email.)
> > 
> > Amanda Baber at IANA pointed out that the added paragraph is a problem for IANA since it’s too imprecise for IANA to carry out. The options come down to:
> > 
> > 1. Revisit the WG decision, and add a field to the registry for the “Y/N” annotations that relate to this spec. 
> > 
> > KT> This was https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-05#section-3
> > 
> >    IANA is requested to introduce a column "Applicability to L2 Bundle
> >    Member TLV" in the registry tables for the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
> >    Sub-TLVs" registry with the initial updates (Y/N) against allocations
> >    as indicated in Figure 2.  Similarly, IANA is requested to introduce
> >    a column "Applicability to L2 Bundle Member TLV" in the registry
> >    tables for the "OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs" registry with the
> >    initial updates (Y/N/X) against allocations as indicated in Figure 3.
> >    Further allocations from these two registries are expected to
> >    indicate the applicability of the introduced sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle
> >    Member TLV that would get updated in these registries.
> 
> Thanks. As mentioned earlier, this is my preferred option — the more so after looking through your analysis. I think all the gyrations after version 05 have demonstrated amply that “perfect is the enemy of good”.
> 
> > 2. Change the policy to something like "IETF Review (Additional Expert Review Required) or IESG Approval" and include advice to the experts in the document. (Thanks to Amanda for this suggestion.)
> > 
> > KT> This is a "quick" tweak on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-08#section-4 as follows:
> > 
> >    This document updates the guidance to IANA for further allocations
> >    from the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" and the "OSPFv3 Extended
> >    LSA Sub-TLVs" registries to "IETF Review (Additional Expert Review
> > 
> >    Required)" [RFC8126] and requests the addition of this document
> >    as a reference to those registries.  It requires that the designated
> > 
> >    expert appointed by IESG verify that any document
> >    requesting allocation of code point from these two registries needs
> >    to specify the applicability of the introduced sub-TLV to the L2
> >    Bundle Member TLV in a manner similar to Figure 2 and Figure 3 that
> >    cover existing allocations up to the point of publication of this
> >    document.
> 
> That looks right. As previously mentioned I don’t see benefit to choosing this option instead of (1) — all cost, no additional benefit.
> 
> > 3. Move the “it requires” text out of the IANA considerations and into a more appropriate section, and don’t try to put a gatekeeper into the registry (yet).
> > 
> > KT> I am not sure what this option involves. Putting this document as a reference but no IANA actions or gatekeeper seems odd to me. Isn't this option - "do nothing" - which is the state in which this draft came out of the WG and AD review?
> 
> Yes indeed, I guess I only mentioned it for completeness. It would resolve IANA’s concerns but wouldn’t satisfy Lars’s DISCUSS, so I think we can take this off the table.
> 
> —John
> 
> > What came out of the WG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-04#section-3 also same as at the end of John's AD review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06#section-3
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >  
> > 
> > I think either option 1 or option 2 would be fine insofar as resolving Lars (et al)’s concern. Option 3 would amount to returning to the previous plan of record, which was to ship the spec without a registry gatekeeper but ask the WG to produce a registry reorg that does so in a more comprehensive way.
> > 
> > Of these plans, I’m least enthusiastic about option 2 since it would require us to appoint and instruct an expert reviewer, for what I hope will be a short-lived function. That implies — to me — that option 1 is the least bad way of breaking the deadlock.
> > 
> > Until we resolve this the draft will be stuck in “IANA NOT OK”.
> > 
> > —John
> > 
> > > Hi Lars,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your confirmation.
> > > 
> > > Acee/John, I haven't received any response (objection or support) from the WG on this change. I believe this may be a good interim step until the WG considers any IANA registry reorganization. Can you please share your views as shepherd and AD respectively?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ketan
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 6:31 PM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 2022-9-30, at 16:37, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > In brief, the proposal was to introduce the following text in the IANA considerations:
> > > > 
> > > > <NEW>
> > > >    This document updates the guidance to IANA for further allocations
> > > >    from the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" [1] and the
> > > >    "OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs" [2] registries and requests the addition
> > > >    of this document as a reference to those registries. It requires
> > > >    that any document requesting allocation of code point from these
> > > >    two registries need to indicate the applicability of the introduced
> > > >    sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member TLV in that document.
> > > 
> > > something along those lines would work for me.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lars
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>