Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

My final input would be that it is important to maintain the linkages. So if an RFC creates a registry and then that registry's name is changed by another RFC then, unfortunately, I think that the second RFC updates the first.

Otherwise I agree with Les.

How about we pick names that don't need updating in the future?

Thanks,
Chris.


"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Alvaro -
>
> I don’t find the referenced draft relevant to this case.
>
> Our difference of opinion has to do with the function of a codepoint registry.
> Registries are created as a place to both document existing codepoints and to be updated when the need for additional codepoints arises.
> There is no benefit or need (IMO of course) for an RFC which initially created the registry to be marked as "updated" when new codepoints are added to the registry - which is really all that is happening here.
>
> Is there anything in RFC 7370 that states or implies that the name of the registry is not subject to change?
> Is there anything in RFC 7370 that states or implies that the set of TLVs under the purview of the registry is not subject to change?
> Why are either of these cases functionally any different from adding a new sub-TLV codepoint to the registry?
>
> I do agree that this is not worth the time being spent on it. So, you have my input. I leave it to the ADs/WG chairs/IESG review to close this issue.
> Thanx for listening.
>
>    Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 6:55 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee)
>> <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[e-mail]>; John
>> Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]>
>> Cc: John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
>> [e-mail]; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; lsr-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: RE: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
>> extensions-14: (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Les:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> In this case the name is being changed, a new column is added, and all
>> the existing code points are updated in light of the new column.
>>
>> I realize this may not be enough for you.  Instead of all of us
>> discussing this specific case, we should focus our energy on clearly
>> defining what “Updates” means — there’s a proposal that could be a
>> starting point [1].
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 19, 2021 at 12:33:27 AM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
>>
>> > The only legitimate reason to update an older
>> > document would be if we are actually changing
>> > in some way one or more of the existing codepoints
>> > already defined in the registry. That is not
>> > happening here.