Re: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Fri, 19 March 2021 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 5FE8D3A11AF; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 vuTYoqcv6vcz; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1B0F3A11AE; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 9CE2F1C0129; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:30:23 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)'" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "'Tony Li'" <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: "'Christian Hopps'" <chopps@chopps.org>, "'Alvaro Retana'" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org>, "'John Scudder'" <jgs@juniper.net>, <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <BY5PR11MB433721C068856ECE2AE4EC5DC19C9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsyrUTPgkjEPy13W6DRv6ofbW9o_=H9C5bZD3cinGYDD_w@mail.gmail.com> <BY5PR11MB4337AB9127DCEBDC780B52F0C16B9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsw3vLJudFJ0VMJ-OJBAtQ6w0=_=zn4pGsyVsmyqFWcG5Q@mail.gmail.com> <BY5PR11MB4337CD595C0E577039A1A110C16A9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESszo-LkSLAj+x-JOAb+6J8WWNufPVQ4xJHnC8389KPgMXA@mail.gmail.com> <DACD9B38-106D-49CD-B868-5AED579F63EE@tony.li> <BY5PR11MB4337C479A81A6DC4259D9D8AC16A9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <94E74912-C3C8-4F6C-BE4D-9F1ADA5D6D5F@tony.li> <BY5PR11MB433783F0EC86C03927CA2EC9C1699@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A1A50CAE-2D36-45AC-B7C7-F8A23B8DAB36@tony.li> <BY5PR11MB4337C398D9C7F510D699647AC1699@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <120759B8-B76B-4F71-9FD7-A9CCE6D1A61C@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <120759B8-B76B-4F71-9FD7-A9CCE6D1A61C@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:30:23 +0800
Message-ID: <00b301d71c5f$6ee8f270$4cbad750$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B4_01D71CA2.7D102A10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKPj/9an+VRnH4Oic7D6+up7UPwuwGxYR1eArI3/dcBX9JuCwLGWvFVAQg9JVkAlghYUwEy12waAZd+PLsCMlpBdAJcmjKAAcHBUJABf1nhjahziLBg
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZSEgeH0hLQhkdHh4eVkpNSk1KSkxPSU9KS0pVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS09ISFVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6MDI6ODo5Iz8SOU4QIwk6PEMT DCMaCzVVSlVKTUpNSkpMT0lPT0hDVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUlPQk9CNwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a78481adf56d993kuws9ce2f1c0129
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/mGchix4QjntrAbSOcyEZ6PAHZ0Q>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required
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: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 01:30:33 -0000

Adding the bit registries when there is extension for the defined flag field is helpful for reviewing the related IETF documents.

For newly defined flag field, such policy can also apply considering there maybe no bit extensions for some flag field.

 

And, should this action be discussed in more broader range? I think this is one general issue, not specific to LSR WG.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 1:15 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>; lsr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org; John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>et>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required

 

Speaking as WG member:

 

Hi Les, 

My opinion is there is no harm and some advantage in having IANA registries for unique IGP protocol bit flag fields. For the existing fields that don’t have registries, there is no burning requirement to go back and define an IANA registry until such time as that flag field is extended. 

 

Note that for OSPF, we did add these registries in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4940.txt (thanks to Kireeti). 

Thanks,

Acee

 

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com> >
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:44 PM
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li <mailto:tony.li@tony.li> >
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com> >, "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org> " <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org> >, "lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> " <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> >, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net <mailto:jgs@juniper.net> >, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org> >, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org> " <lsr-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org> >
Subject: RE: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org> >
Resent-To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com> >, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> >, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org> >
Resent-Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:44 PM

 

Tony –

 

In this context I don’t find the use of a registry of value. The primary issue for me for these fields is not managing the bit assignments but understanding the functionality – and for that I need to look at the document(s) which have that definition. A registry in these cases provides little value and adds process and a possibility for inconsistency.

 

But, I am not expecting that there is anything I can say to change your opinion – nor vice versa. So I appreciate that you have made your POV clear and the reasons for it – and I am not trying to change your opinion.

 

I started this thread because I did not think a change in WG policy should be made solely based on a single document review comment from one individual – even one as highly respected as Alvaro.

Thus far we have a handful of opinions – I am hoping more members of the WG will respond to the thread and then we can proceed appropriately.

 

   Les

 

From: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com <mailto:tony1athome@gmail.com> > On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:24 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com> >
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com> >; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org> ; lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> ; John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net <mailto:jgs@juniper.net> >; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org> >; lsr-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org> 
Subject: Re: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required

 

 

Les,

 





IMO, there is no need for registries for the first category. The WG has been alive for over 20 years, defined many new TLVs with flags fields, and I am not aware of any confusion – so if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

 

 

With all due respect Les, you appear to operate with an eidetic memory of all things IS-IS, so I think that you discount the confusion that the rest of us live in. 

 

If a field has values defined in two documents, then there’s confusion. Even just finding both is a challenge.

 

Regards,

Tony