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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 03 June 2020 07:20 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 4E00B3A0CA6 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 00:20:51 -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 3al3qCcflmBo for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 00:20:49 -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 4440B3A0CAF for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 00:20:49 -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 97E9C322E28; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:20:43 +0200 (CEST)
To: tony.li@tony.li
Cc: iana-prot-param@iana.org, lsr@ietf.org, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, acee@cisco.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> <92F24980-10F5-4EB9-839A-DCF5A2AE7552@tony.li>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <b2da6f1d-83c7-2547-936d-1608ce97ca54@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 15:20:40 +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: <92F24980-10F5-4EB9-839A-DCF5A2AE7552@tony.li>
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/sXGIOoIHrjDfGVmFBAnKvL9fp3o>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on the early allocation - Re: [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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 07:20:51 -0000

Tony,

I guess that this shows that we should take care naming our registries.

In line please-

On 02/06/2020 23:24, tony.li@tony.li wrote:
> 
> Hi Loa,
> 
>> 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”
> 
> 
> I apologize for the confusion, you are certainly correct.
> 
> The confusion arises because the page is named “IS-IS TLV Codepoints” 
> and the registry is the “TLV Codepoints Registry” so to be precise, we 
> should request an allocation from the “IS-IS TLV Codepoints TLV 
> Codepoints Registry”.  That does seem somewhat awkward and redundant 
> redundant.
> 
> To reduce confusion in the future, perhaps the entire page should be 
> renamed to “IS-IS Codepoints”?

In the party of the world there I'm active there is a tendency to call
"the page" the "name space", that stops us from repeating "registry" to
often, so we have name space, registry and sub-registry. This is as I
understand it a terminology IANA understands, even if there is no formal
acceptance of it.

Renaming the name space would require us to update a number of IS-IS
documents. I would advice against that, but if the wg decides to do it
try to help to get correct.

For the time being I'd say that we want to allocate the code points
from the "TLV Codepoints" reistry in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints"
namespace.

Doing that way it is also easier to find the correct registry.

 >/Loa
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 

-- 

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