[Lsr] [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

Hi Loa, all,

A note about this:

> Yeah - you are requesting code points from registries where the
> registration procedures are "Expert Review". But those are not early
> allocation, they are permanent.

There is a kind of hybrid early allocation/Expert Review procedure for the IS-IS Exert Review registries, which is what I understood to be in use here. If the experts approve, we mark the registrations as temporary and ask them to re-approve a year later. It's described in Section 4 of RFC 7370:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7370#section-4

thanks,
Amanda

On Tue Jun 02 18:01:21 2020, loa@pi.nu wrote:
> Tony,
> 
> inline plz.
> 
> On 02/06/2020 22:42, Tony Przygienda wrote:
> > Loa, fair points though I would say adoption is kind of a different
> > kettle of fish than early allocation.
> 
> yeah - but the point I made, modulo some small updates in the IANA
> considerations I think the document is ready for wg adoption. And
> really the updates in the IANA considerations is strictly not
> necessary for wg adoption, but I prefer to have the IANA registries
> in scope clearly pointed out.
> >
> > RFC7120 does not seem to apply given ISIS registries are under expert
> > review (largely due to historical reasons AFAIS).
> 
> Yeah - you are right. I missed that, was to focused on the
> requirements
> in 7120.
> >
> > I watch that with lots of interest since due to customer
> > discussions/(deployment) planning we request with experts early
> > allocation for
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-
> > reflection/
> 
> Yeah - you are requesting code points from registries where the
> registration procedures are "Expert Review". But those are not early
> allocation, they are permanent.
> 
> > We have however the benefit of not needing any new registries.
> 
> Yes, that is a blessing, but for a new registry you can actually
> capture
> in the draft and populate it with code point values, the only thing is
> that once you put a value in there it should not be changed.
> Especially
> if you know of early implementations.
> 
> For your draft the registries should be called:
> 
> Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 (IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV); and
>  Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS
>  reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes,
>  inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor
> Attribute
> TLVs)
> 
> (Don't blame me, I didn't name the registries :) ).
> 
> 
> and both registries are found in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints namespace.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > -- tony
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:00 AM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
> > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I have two questions on the early allocation.
> >
> > RFC 7120 allows early allocation for two types of
> >
> >     The processes described below assume that the document in
> > question is
> >     the product of an IETF Working Group (WG).  If this is not the
> > case,
> >     replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding Area Director".
> >
> > draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy is an individual document, i.e. not a
> > product of a working group nor shepherded by an AD, and does not seem
> > to
> > meet the criteria for early allocation.
> >
> > Also. draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy request that IANA create a new
> > registry, as far as I understand new registries can't be created
> > through
> > early allocation. It is hardly necessary.
> >
> > The code points are requested from "the IS-IS TLV Codepoints
> > registry",
> > howver the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" is a name space with 14 different
> > registries. I think the the registry you want to allocated code point
> > from the "TLV Codepoints registry"
> >
> > Since the document, at least I read it, well meet the criteria for
> > becoming a working document (minor update to the IANA section), I
> > think
> > that the easy way out is to start the working group adoption poll.
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> >
> > On 02/06/2020 12:52, Tony Li wrote:
> >      >
> >      > Hi Amanda,
> >      >
> >      >> However, the IANA Considerations section is missing some
> > information.
> >      >> How would we fill in the IIH, LSP, SNP, and Purge fields for
> >      >> the
> > TLV
> >      >> Codepoint registrations?
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > We’ve addressed this in
> >      > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06..
> >      >
> >      > Thanks,
> >      > Sarah & Tony
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > _______________________________________________
> >      > Lsr mailing list
> >      > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> >      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> >      >
> >
> > --
> >
> > My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
> > we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
> > get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
> > loa.pi.nu@gmail
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>
> > Senior MPLS Expert
> > Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lsr mailing list
> > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lsr mailing list
> > Lsr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> >