Re: [mpls] early allocations of code points for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-00.txt

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Hi MPLS WG, MPLS Chairs,

Here's an update on these early allocations. IANA has finished the early allocation for OSPFv3 codepoints. They responded they could not rename the OSPF codepoint as OSPFv2 until the draft was approved. The chairs asked if a note could be added to the OSPF codepoint saying it will be renamed. IANA asked for my approval to add such a note.

When asked for my initial approval on this IANA early allocation, I only looked at the draft itself and not at RFC8287 which it "updates". It was my error to assume RFC8287's OSPF codepoint was for OSPFv2 and this draft updated to add a codepoint for OSPFv3. Reviewing RFC8287, the OSPF codepoint is used by IPv4 and IPv6, so it currently represents both OSPFv2 and v3. Codepoints are usually deprecated (obsoleted), but they are not reassigned when in use. Especially if there are no registry limitations.

Before approving adding this note, I requested the authors to add information on interoperability aspects and rationale on renaming as the best solution. As this is a working group draft, I encourage the working group to engage on the solution.

Note, the document not only impacts RFC8287 but also RFC8690.

Thanks,
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 3:18 PM
To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; IANA <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: early allocations of code points for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-00.txt

Hi Loa, IANA,

I approve these early allocations-
Thanks-
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:37 AM
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; IANA <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: early allocations of code points for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-00.txt

Deborah,

This is the process for early allocations of IANA codepoints as
described in RFC 7120. The comments preceded with (-) are mine
describing how the current draft meet the requirements for early
allocation,

    1.  The authors (editors) of the document submit a request for early
        allocation to the Working Group chairs, specifying which code
        points require early allocation and to which document they should
        be assigned.

        - This has been done, though the authors actually requested the
          code points to be made to an individual draft (draft-nainar-
          mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint)

        - The wg chair responded that early code point allocations can
          only be made to working group documents.

        - The working group document is no at hand and the working group
          chairs are prepared to go ahead and request the allocations.

    2.  The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early
        allocations described in Section 2 are met, particularly
        conditions (c) and (d).

       - the working group chairs has reviewed the draft in the light
         of section 2 of RFC 7120.

       - the wg chairs are convinced that draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-
         ospfv3-codepoint all the criteria listed in section 2 of
         RFC 7120.

    3.  The WG chairs gauge whether there is consensus within the WG that
        early allocation is appropriate for the given document.

        - the wg chairs are convinced that the har consensus in the wg
          to go ahead and do the early allocation.

    4.  If steps 2) and 3) are satisfied, the WG chairs request approval
        from the Area Director(s).  The Area Director(s) may apply
        judgement to the request, especially if there is a risk of
        registry depletion.

        - This mail is the request according to step for in the process
          for early allocation.

        - the mail is sent to Deborah Brungard as responsible AD, with a
          copy to the the other rtg-ads.

        - we request support for early allocation of the codes as
          requested in Sectioon 7 (IANA considerations) in draft-ietf-
          mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint, i.e.:
          One new code point for OSPFv3 in the "Protocol in the Segment
          ID sub-TLV"
          Renaming of the existing OSPF code point in the same registry
          to "OSPFv3".

          and

          One new code point for OSPFv3 in the "Protocol in Label Stack
          Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"
          Renaming of the existing OSPF code point in the same registry
          to "OSPFv3".

        - we will wait for the response from the responsible AD before
          going ahead with step 5 in this process.

    5.  If the Area Directors approve step 4), the WG chairs request IANA
        to make an early allocation.

    6.  IANA makes an allocation from the appropriate registry, marking
        it as "Temporary", valid for a period of one year from the date
        of allocation.  The date of first allocation and the date of
        expiry are also recorded in the registry and made visible to the
        public.


/Loa
for the MPLS wg co-chairs.

PS
This mail is sent to IANA, even though IANA do not need to take any
action until the formal request.
-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]