[OPSAWG]Re: [Ext] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12: (with COMMENT)

[Amanda Baber <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

 

What aspect of FCFS is “First Come First Served With Expert Review” meant to capture?

 
If it’s just the idea that IANA will address requests as they come in (which may mean requesting clarification from the submitter rather than sending the request directly to the expert), that doesn’t need to be specified by the document.
 
If the idea is that the review should be extremely minimal, this should be described to the designated expert. 8126 recommends including guidance for the designated expert, and we often see this placed in its own (sometimes brief) subsection.
 
If the idea is that values will be assigned sequentially, this actually isn’t an FCFS requirement. RFC 8126 says, “IANA generally assigns the next in-sequence unallocated value, but other values may be requested and assigned if an extenuating circumstance exists.” 
 
If sequential assignment is mandatory, this should be stated in the document. If sequential assignment is expected but not mandatory, it could be mentioned to the designated expert. IANA will generally assign values sequentially unless asked to do otherwise.
 
We do object to “First Come First Served With Expert Review,” though, because “First Come First Served” as defined in RFC 8126 specifically means that there will be no expert review.
 
Thanks,
Amanda
 

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, October 10, 2025 at 1:42 PM
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Ext] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12: (with COMMENT)

 

Hello Michael,

 

Thanks for your quick reply and the proposed changes.

 

I will let the responsible AD sort out the publication status.

 

About IANA, I am unsure whether I have seen a FCFS registry with expert review, but happy to stand corrected.

 

Regards

 

-éric

 

On 10/10/2025, 20:50, "Michael Richardson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:

    > ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

 

    > ### Why informational ?

 

    > The shepherd write-up is rather silent on the intended status of informational

    > as it seems to me that proposed standard would be a better fit.

 

Informational Seems wrong.

I see that the document declares that, and I think that's a copy'n'paste mistake.

It should be std.  At one point, we were told that only IETF-stream STD could

create certain categories of registry, and that's why we couldn't go ISE.

 

    > Moreover, draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng has, rightfully, a normative reference to a

    > previous version (draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype) of this I-D, i.e., this

    > creates a downref.

 

Fixed in my copy.

 

    > ### Abstract

 

    > An abstract should be short of course, but this one is a little too short: why

    > not adding reference (expansion at least) for PCAP. It also uses the word

    > "describes", which is correct for an informational I-D, even if it actually

    > "specifies" the value, i.e., why not 'proposed standard' ?

 

I'm not sure PCAP still has an expansion, but I've expanded it to "Packet

CAPture".  How about:

 

  This document describes a set of Packet CAPture (PCAP)-related LinkType values and

  creates an IANA registry for those values.

  These values are used by the PCAP and PCAP-Now-Generic specifications.

 

    > ### Section 2

 

    > As I spotted only one use of BCP14 (moreover in an informational I-D) in

    > section 3.2 (IANA considerations), please remove this section. See also

    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ [datatracker.ietf.org]

    > about the use of BCP14 terms in IANA considerations.

 

fixed.

 

    > ### Section 3.2.2

 

    > Per section 4.2 of RFC 8126, there is no designated expert for a FCFS registry,

    > i.e., remove this section or change the registry policy to 'expert review'.

 

So, we want FCFS with Expert Review.