[nvo3] Mail regarding draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve

["Matthew Bocci (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Authors and BESS WG,

 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-06<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-06> is currently languishing due to a lack of implementation. However, it would be good to get this done as there is no current agreed specification for a control plane to support applications where Geneve is the data plane.

One option to move this forward might be to change its proposed status to Experimental so that we can move this forward without requiring at least one implementation. Implementors would then have a baseline specification against which to develop.

However, we need to make sure that the IANA requests are appropriate for this type of RFC.

There are two IANA code points that the draft requests:

IANA is requested to assign a new option class from the "Geneve
   Option Class" registry for the Ethernet option TLV.

   Option Class Description     Reference
   ------------ --------------- -------------
   XXXX         Ethernet option This document

   IANA is requested to assign a new BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
   Sub-TLV from the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
   registry.

   BGP Tunnel Attribute Sub-TLV Description               Reference
   ---------------------------- ------------------------- -------------
   XXXX                         Geneve tunnel option type This document


For the Geneve Option Class, the registry is split into the IETF Review, FCFS, and Experimental ranges. I think the draft needs to be explicit about which range, which should probably be FCFS in this case.
The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV registry is split into Standards Action, FCFS, and Experimental ranges. There are a couple of unassigned blocks in two FCFS ranges, so the draft could request an allocation from one of those.

The draft is currently expired. I would suggest that the authors publish a new version of the draft, changing the Proposed Status to Experimental, and specifying that the code points above should be allocated from First Come First Served ranges. I can then start a WG LC on the draft.

Thanks

Matthew