Re: [mpls] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: (with COMMENT)

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Last time I checked in with IANA about this (IANA and I were talking past each other about "registries", "top-level registries", "registry pages", and "sub-registries") I think it was on IANA's list of things to do to make a clear terminology for everyone to use.

Obviously, we can't hold up the production of IETF work waiting for that, so the attempt is to write something that is understood by the readers and the primary consumers (including IANA). Consistency with other work may be hard because the use of terms has historically been a bit varied.

I'm sure that direct editorial suggestions would be welcomed by the authors.

Best,
Adrian (Ye Olde Sheppard)

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 15 February 2021 10:38
To: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: (with COMMENT)

Erik,

inline please.

On 15/02/2021 15:00, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote:
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [[ comments ]]
> 
> [ section 1.2.1 ]
> 
> * I find it slightly odd that this section even exists.
> 
>    RFC 8126 section 1 seems to provide a definition for "namespace" and
>    for "assignment"/"registration".  My reading of 8126s1's definition
>    of namespace doesn't seem to quite match this document's use of namespace
>    (seems more like the definition of registry without the existence of
>    a definition for "sub-registry"), but maybe I haven't spent enough time
>    thinking about it.

I kind of agree that it is kind of odd - one would think that something 
as important as the nomenclature around IANA restrings would be set in 
stone. When we started to write this document we found that we were 
talking past each other when talking about different "levels" of IANA 
registries. So we wrote something that could work for THIS dcument, 
without being a suggestion for an IANA registries nomenclature.

I would certainly be willing to work on such a nomenclature, and I find 
it encouraging that IANA have started to talk about the hightest level 
of registries listed on https://www.iana.org/protocols as categories and 
seem to be willing to introduce  sub-categories.

/Loa
> 
>    If IANA review is fine with this text here, I've no objection.
> 
> 
> [[ nits ]]
> 
> [ section 1 ]
> 
> * "there hav been" -> "there have been"
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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