Re: [OPSAWG] WG consensus call for the IANA early assignment //RE: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Yes, there is.  And Early assignment is not an unusual request.  See RFC
7120.


On 8/25/16 10:01 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>  
>
> I don’t know.  It seems that every draft could make similar claims,
> and yet having IANA make early assignments all the time wouldn’t be
> good.   I don’t see why this draft should get a pass.   Is there any
> documentation detailing criteria for early assignments?
>
>  
>
> Kent
>
>  
>
> *From: *Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 2:36 PM
> *To: *Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>, Zhoutianran
> <[e-mail]>, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [OPSAWG] WG consensus call for the IANA early
> assignment //RE: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04
>
>  
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> We're doing some open source and would like to make it easier for
> those who are coding to have to do a little less REcoding.  I doubt
> very much we're going to see much change in the content or format the
> URL or the option.  That's what most of the requests are for.  Where I
> expect we will see change is in the content of the YANG file.  There
> we have the option to bump the version # in the URL if we think there
> has been any real uptake of earlier versions.
>
> Fair enough?
>
> Eliot
>
>  
>
> On 8/25/16 7:27 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>      
>
>     Why is an early assignment being requested?   I think it unusual,
>     especially for a draft that was just adopted, and no justification
>     is given for why it’s needed other than “to assist with
>     interoperable development”...
>
>      
>
>     Kent
>
>      
>
>     *From: *OPSAWG <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Zhoutianran
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:46 AM
>     *To: *Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Warren
>     Kumari <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *[OPSAWG] WG consensus call for the IANA early
>     assignment //RE: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04
>
>      
>
>     Hi All,
>
>      
>
>     Since the authors of the draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-00 asked for the
>     early assignment for various registries from IANA, I would like to
>     ask the WG consensus.
>
>      
>
>     There will be 1 week since today. You can express your support or
>     objection.
>
>      
>
>     If there is no objection, I would like to request from the WG.
>
>      
>
>     The following is a list of IANA considerations copied from the draft.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Best,
>
>     Tianran
>
>      
>
>     -------------------------------------
>
>      
>
>     15.  IANA Considerations
>
>      
>
>     15.1.  DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Options
>
>      
>
>        IANA is requested to allocated the DHCPv4 and v6 options as
>     specified
>
>        in Section 9.
>
>      
>
>     15.2.  PKIX Extensions
>
>      
>
>        The IANA is requested to assign a value for id-pe-mud-uri in
>     the "SMI
>
>        Security for PKIX Certificate Extension" Registry.  Its use is
>
>        specified in Section 10.
>
>      
>
>     15.3.  Well Known URI Suffix
>
>      
>
>        The IANA is requested to register the URL suffix of "mud" as
>     follows:
>
>      
>
>        o URI Suffix: "mud" o Specification documents: this document o
>
>        Related information: n/a
>
>      
>
>     15.4.  MIME Media-type Registration for MUD files
>
>      
>
>        The following media-type is defined for transfer of MUD file:
>
>      
>
>        o Type name: application
>
>        o Subtype name: mud+json
>
>        o Required parameters: n/a
>
>        o Optional parameters: n/a
>
>        o Encoding considerations: 8bit; application/mud+json values
>
>          are represented as a JSON object; UTF-8 encoding SHOULD be
>
>          employed.
>
>        o Security considerations: See {{secon}} of this document.
>
>        o Interoperability considerations: n/a
>
>        o Published specification: this document
>
>        o Applications that use this media type: MUD controllers as
>
>          specified by this document.
>
>        o Fragment identifier considerations: n/a
>
>        o Additional information:
>
>      
>
>            Magic number(s): n/a
>
>            File extension(s): n/a
>
>            Macintosh file type code(s): n/a
>
>      
>
>        o Person & email address to contact for further information:
>
>          Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Ralph
>     Droms <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>        o Intended usage: COMMON
>
>        o Restrictions on usage: none
>
>      
>
>        o Author: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>        o Change controller: IESG
>
>        o Provisional registration? (standards tree only): No.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     15.5.  LLDP IANA TLV Subtype Registry
>
>      
>
>        IANA is requested to create a new registry for IANA Link Layer
>
>        Discovery Protocol (LLDP) TLV subtype values.  The recommended
>     policy
>
>        for this registry is Expert Review.  The maximum number of
>     entries in
>
>        the registry is 256.
>
>      
>
>        IANA is required to populate the initial registry with the value:
>
>      
>
>        LLDP subtype value = 1
>
>      
>
>        Description = the Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) Uniform
>
>        Resource Locator (URL)
>
>      
>
>        Reference = < this document >
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:*Eliot Lear [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 7:04 PM
>     *To:* Warren Kumari
>     *Cc:* Zhoutianran; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04
>
>      
>
>     Hi Warren, Tianran, and all,
>
>      
>
>     On 8/17/16 4:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>          
>
>
>             Second, and hopefully not that more of a controversy, I
>             would like to
>             request early IANA assignments to assist with interoperable
>             development.  These would be listed in the IANA
>             considerations section
>             of the current draft.  If we need a WG draft to make this
>             happen, that's
>             fine with me, but we should do a quick rev after the
>             assignments.
>
>          
>
>         I believe that this *can* be accomplished without it being a
>         WG doc, but it is better / cleaner / easier if we make it a WG
>         doc and then ask for early assistant. We are fine with lots of
>         revisions / it being submitted and then quickly revised.
>
>
>     Just following up on this point: we'd like to request early
>     assignment from IANA for the various registries.  Does that go
>     through the chairs or the authors at this point?
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Eliot
>
>  
>