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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 04 June 2020 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2EB3A0E5C for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id naosTaz5IHYx for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B36273A0E58 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (unknown [122.2.104.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BECAF322EBE; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 05:30:22 +0200 (CEST)
To: iana-prot-param@iana.org, acee@cisco.com, chopps@chopps.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org, tonysietf@gmail.com
References: <RT-Ticket-1171772@icann.org> <C952BE83-EF9E-437F-836C-D3221FF533DF@cisco.com> <rt-4.4.3-29956-1591060382-1741.1171772-37-0@icann.org> <39E5E5AC-8E29-43F0-86C3-194754A5B7A7@gmail.com> <918d12eb-d2c2-7867-5cb7-8913a8e35c7b@pi.nu> <CA+wi2hNW3WGQ1pw5on5WBUBk=niE2=4YEWLaZP_8afu75RtFYg@mail.gmail.com> <23982529-fe2a-7915-31b4-5dd1639221dd@pi.nu> <rt-4.4.3-23677-1591120881-194.1171772-37-0@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-23677-1591125421-1857.1171772-37-0@icann.org>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <b7fd3e89-34cd-16c8-fc8f-12f152744f47@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:30:19 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.4.3-23677-1591125421-1857.1171772-37-0@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Du7UtkSJg4dNcjWm5HtUUHaki40>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 03:30:29 -0000

Amanda,

Thanks, for the clarification. I have not had to manage code point 
allocation for Expert Review registries and had not looked at 7370.

Small question, if you do the hybrid early allocation and then 6 months 
later the document is  is approved as an RFC is that the time when you
mark the allocations permanent?

/Loa

On 03/06/2020 03:17, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
> 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
>>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> 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
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64