Re: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-lcap-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

It is, indeed, a tradeoff whether to update IANA registries (or documents for that matter) after-the-fact. I agree that both sides of the equation need to be weighted, and thanks for the input. I will add that there is a timing condition to the trade-off, such that controlling mess earlier prevents compounded mess.

Based on these points, my thoughts:
I contend that in this case, we end up with better underlying RFCs as well -- if you actually check the RFCs being updated, none of them have pointers (URIs) to the actual IANA registries. Only vague descriptions -- so the registries are really hard to find. With this update, the RFCs' metadata are updated, and the new RFC will have precise pointers.
Is the WG planning on adding features that require numbers for G-ACh? If the answer is at least "maybe" or "potentially", then we should do this now to prevent exponential mess. Arguably we should have done this earlier.
Regarding PWE3, I agree as well -- Andy Malis weighted in, feel free to also forward the poll to PWE3.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On Sep 6, 2013, at 7:53 AM, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Messy
> 
> We end up with a better IANA registry but with worse underlying RFC,
> since this updates seven of them, making it harder to find the current
> status of the MPLS standards, and we already have an awful lot of MPLS
> RFC interacting with each other.
> 
> Is there a half-way house which gives us most of the benefit with fewer
> updates?
> 
> And this hits PWE3 so I think that they should be polled as well.
> 
> On balance, I do not support this.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Callon" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 5:01 PM
> Subject: [mpls] Poll for Adoption
> draft-lcap-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02
> 
> 
> This is to start a "two week" poll on adopting
> draft-lcap-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02
> as an MPLS working group document.
> 
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>).
> 
> This poll will end September 20, 2013.
> 
> Thanks, Ross
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls