Re: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-andersson-mpls-moving-iana-registries-00

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

Loa,

Yes, what I already suggested: get all the mpls-gach allocations together in a new registry (from mpls-lsp-ping-parameters, pwe3-parameters, and mpls-oam-parameters, into a new one).

Basically you have hierarchical allocations, that should be together: there are registries created for many individual values of G-ACH Type ("Pseudowire Associated Channel Type"). They should follow.

If you are moving 4 registries from mpls-lsp-ping-parameters, where do you propose they'd end up?

BTW: These are the full G-ACH numbers for GACH:
Pseudowire Associated Channel Types
Associated Channel Header TLV Registry // empty to be removed
MPLS Fault OAM Message Type Registry
MPLS Fault OAM Flag Registry
MPLS Fault OAM TLV Registry
MPLS PSC Request Registry
MPLS PSC TLV Registry
G-ACh Advertisement Protocol Application Registry
G-ACh Advertisement Protocol TLV Registry
G-ACh Advertisement Protocol: Ethernet Interface Parameters
CC/CV MEP-ID TLV Registry
Measurement Timestamp Type
Loss/Delay Measurement Control Code: Query Codes
Loss/Delay Measurement Control Code: Response Codes
MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object
Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On Aug 14, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
 wrote:

> Carlos,
> 
> as long as we move them out of the LSP Ping registry and we can find a
> place where we have consensus that we should move them, I fine with
> that.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 2013-08-14 18:25, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
>> Hi, Loa,
>> 
>> Please see inline.
>> 
>> On Aug 14, 2013, at 2:25 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Carlos,
>>> 
>>> While I tend to agree that someone (hint) should write-up a document
>>> fixing the G-ACh registries, that is not the purpose of the current
>>> documents. It is looking to clean up the LSP Ping registries.
>>> 
>> 
>> The title of the current document is "Moving Generic Associated Channel registries to a new name space".
>> 
>> This in itself sets up a broader goal than tossing namespaces outside LSP Ping registry over the wall.
>> 
>>> We have tried the approach "fixing everything" and failed to get our
>>> heads around it, decided to take a stepwise approach. If we now stumble
>>> on the first step (or rather second, since cleaning up the LSP registy
>>> structure was the first) I'm afraid that nothing will be done.
>>> 
>> 
>> I wouldn't say "fix everything", but I would say "fix consistently" or "fix atomically". I do understand now that your goal is to clean up the LSP Ping registry. However, since you are "Moving Generic Associated Channel registries to a new name space", "fix modularly" can mean coalesce all the GACH registries, from LSP Ping as well as from the other 2-3 registries. In other words, fix two (LSP Ping and GACH) with potentially very small additional incremental effort.
>> 
>>> Since you say (below) "solves a small part" I hope we can do this and
>>> go ahead and do the rest as soon as we have the cycles.
>>> 
>> 
>> My humble view is that just moving these four falls short of meaningful change.
>> 
>> This is just a datapoint, my opinion, and I was too optimistic with "solves a small part".
>> 
>> I tried to present a proposal along with my comments that, to me, has more return on cycles: coalesce the G-ACH registries, currently in LSP Ping, PWE3, and MPLS OAM. Since you gave me a "hint" above, I'd be happy to help out with this if the WG consensus is that the work makes sense.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> -- Carlos.
>> 
>> 
>>> /Loa
>>> 
>>> On 2013-08-14 04:53, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
>>>> I believe that fixing and organizing misplaced number registrations is
>>>> useful and worthwhile as it prevents future confusion, and typically
>>>> welcome clean-ups.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I do not support adoption
>>>> of draft-andersson-mpls-moving-iana-registries-00 in its current form.
>>>> 
>>>> The document solves a small part of the potential source of confusion,
>>>> and, to me, it should fix all potential inconsistencies or leave things
>>>> as-is.
>>>> 
>>>> Specifically:
>>>> 
>>>>  * draft-andersson-mpls-moving-iana-registries proposes only to move
>>>>    four namespaces currently in [1] from [RFC6374] into a new heading
>>>>    (registry).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> However, there's still the following potential inconsistencies, with all
>>>> these protocol elements from the G-ACH in different places:
>>>> 
>>>>  * The G-ACH Channel Types namespace, although now it's a superset of
>>>>    the original PW-ACH, is still titled "Pseudowire Associated Channel
>>>>    Types" and is hosted in the pwe3-parameters registry. [2]
>>>>  * Other G-ACH namespaces and assignments from [RFC6427]
>>>>    and [RFC6378] reside in their own mpls-oam-parameters page [3]
>>>>  * G-ACh Advertisement Protocol namespaces are in the pwe3-parameters
>>>>    registry [4] [5] [6], although these are not PWE3.
>>>>  * CC/CV MEP-ID TLV namespace with pwe3-parameters [7]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I would suggest that either things are left as they are, or all these
>>>> G-ACH/PW-ACH namespaces are moved under a main "Generic Associated
>>>> Channel (G-ACH)" registry *if* there's consensus for the clean-up.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> -- Carlos.
>>>> 
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#measurement-timestamp
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#pwe3-parameters-11
>>>> [3]
>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-oam-parameters/mpls-oam-parameters.xhtml
>>>> [4]
>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#gach-application
>>>> [5]
>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#gach-tlv
>>>> [6]
>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#gach-ethernet
>>>> [7]
>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#cc-cv-mep-id
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Ross Callon <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This is to start a "two week" poll on adopting
>>>>> draft-andersson-mpls-moving-iana-registries-00
>>>>> 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 August 28, 2013.
>>>>> Thanks, Ross
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]