[OPSAWG]Re: [Ext] Ketan Talaulikar's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for posting an update. You beat me to the update. I was hoping for the discussion to settle down and see an updated version that captured all the discussion. Well …


> On Dec 3, 2025, at 12:36 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> That works for me. For the initial allocations where reference is not
>> available, perhaps place 'not available' in the reference column?
> 
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-14&url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-15&difftype=--html
> 
> hoping this is what you wanted....
> 
> Maybe s/legacy/initial entries/ ... damn.
> I will update my copy now, and await other comments, and repost tomorrow.

Besides these editorial changes, I am hoping for a resolution on the following points.

1. Consistency 

- The description of the LinkType Registry talks about 4 items per entry. They are:
  - LinkType Name
  - LinkType Value
  - Description
  - Reference

The initial version of the table in Section 2.2.1 shows:

- Name
- Number
- Description
- Reference

Can these be made consistent?

2. I would have deferred the definition of Change Controller to Section 2.3 of RFC8126. As is, the definition is incomplete.

3. In reading Section 2.3 of RFC8126, there seems to be some flexibility on who is the Change Controller for entries that are being grandfathered vs new entries. I see that the document now calls out [e-mail] for entries that are grandfathered. Thanks for adding that.

4. Guy had suggestion for registration that do not have a reference. In particular, if there is no document, can the email address for the person who requested the LinkType be added? I believe that is captured in Section 2.2.2 of the document which is somewhat misplaced as the Section Title is “Guidance for Designated Experts”, says "The minimal requirement is to provide a contact person for that link type.” I think what was intended was “contact information for a person”, not just “contact person”, or better still “email address of the person”.

Thanks.

> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 


Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]