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

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

Tom,

On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:11 AM, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> More opposition - see below,

Thanks -- frankly I did not read your comments as "opposition" but as two small pieces of improvement since the root problem is still there, and gets worst.

> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>
> To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Ross Callon" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 2:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll for
> Adoptiondraft-lcap-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> <tp>
> I do not understand the logic of this I-D.  It renames the "Pseudowire
> Associated Channel Types"  into "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel
> (G-ACh) Types  (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)".
> 

Do you find the Abstract particularly difficult to parse? We really aimed for a simple logic: The PW-ACH has been generalized, in RFC5586, and is applicable beyond PWs. However, the IANA registries did not track this change, and consequently MPLS registrations are made in PWE3 registries, and G-ACh registrations (meaning the ones that are fields of the ACH Type) are distributed throughout many different registries.

Perhaps the "including" threw you off? If that is so, I think you have a point, and that could be renamed to "previously" or "formerly".

> It identifies RFC5586, in Section 3, as being affected, but why not
> RFC4385 or the ten other RFC which define entries in the to-be-renamed
> registry?  Read one of them (e.g. RFC5885), check that this is not
> affected by errata or updates thereto, go looking for the registry by
> name and you will not find it (once this has been implemented).
> 

The approach has been to minimize the updates. In that, we chose to only update RFC5586 for the renaming and moving of the registry. Perhaps what's needed (as IANA does sometimes) is leave a pointer in the old registry. Another option is to list the other RFCs. We can ask IANA for their current best practice.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
>