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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

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