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

Folks -

Replying to the WG list on this as we believe this is of interest to the entire WG.

The designated experts (Chris, Hannes, and myself) have discussed the request for early codepoint allocations for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04.

Ordinarily such requests are routine. Our task is only to perform due diligence to insure that the codepoints are assigned appropriately.

In this case however, we are - for the first time - being asked to provide early allocations for a document which has yet to be adopted by the WG.
Guidance for us is provided in RFC7370<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7370>. Specifically

Section 4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7370#section-4> which states

"2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
       from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
       documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
       documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group."

This recommendation is sound since early allocations for documents which do not achieve RFC status ultimately expire and are deallocated under the
procedures defined in rfc7120<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7120> . While WG adoption is not a guarantee of successful progression to RFC, it does commit the WG to working on such documents and greatly enhances the chances of
an RFC being published.

While the language above allows for exceptions, we are reluctant to make an exception in this case.

We note that the problem space being addressed by draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy has stimulated multiple solutions/drafts. The likelihood that some of the proposed solutions would be abandoned and/or not achieve market acceptance seems high.
Early allocation of code points without a WG commitment then seems to have a higher than normal probability that the codepoint allocations would ultimately be deallocated.

We believe that the WG needs to invest time in deciding which solutions should go forward. We therefore encourage the WG to make expeditious decisions regarding WG adoption of one (or perhaps multiple) of the drafts addressing this problem space.

We will be happy to quickly review early allocation requests for any documents as soon as they achieve WG status.

   Les and Chris and Hannes

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Amanda Baber via RT

> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 6:13 PM

> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>

> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; martin.vigoureux@nokia.com

> Subject: [Lsr] [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for

> IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

>

> Hi Acee, Martin,

>

> We've sent this request to the IS-IS experts for review in accordance with

> the RFC 7370 early allocation procedure for IS-IS Expert Review registries.

>

> We understand that if the experts approve, we would make three

> early/temporary registrations in the TLV Codepoints registry and add one

> entry to the Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 (IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV) registry. The

> creation of the sub-registry will have to wait for the document to be

> approved for publication.

>

> 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?

>

> Best regards,

>

> Amanda Baber

> Lead IANA Services Specialist

>

> On Mon Jun 01 19:46:54 2020, acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> > Hi IANA, Martin,

> >

> > We’ve discussed this draft and are going forward with the early

> > allocation request. While there is some overlap with other LSR WG

> > proposals, there is no reason to block all the drafts given that it

> > very unlikely that we will have a combined draft any time soon.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Acee and Chris

>

> _______________________________________________

> Lsr mailing list

> Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr