Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 21 Aug 2017, at 10:58, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> On 8/21/17, 11:40 AM, "Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
>> Review result: Almost Ready
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
>> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
>> Review Date: 2017-08-21
>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-28
>> IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31
>>
>> Summary: Almost Ready
>>
>> The content of this document is fine. However, I think the IANA 
>> registry
>> stuff
>> is not ready.
>>
>> Major issues:
>>
>> I think the registrations other than for Endpoint and Color are 
>> incorrect
>> and
>> should not be in this document. Certainly the "Reference" field for 
>> 1, 2,
>> 5, 6,
>> and 7 should not be "This document", given that the syntax and 
>> semantics
>> for
>> these values are defined in other documents.
>
> The authors can fix these.

For 1, 2, 6, and 7, that's easy; the drafts defining the values can do 
the registrations. For 5, the reference would be to an existing RFC that 
doesn't do the registration. I'm not sure what to do about that; perhaps 
register it here and make the reference both 5640 and this document. 
However, when someone goes to update 5640 some day, they're going to 
have to put into the IANA considerations to update both the OSPF and BGP 
registries. I'm not sure how to keep track of that. Perhaps saying that 
this document "Updates: 5640"? That doesn't seem great either.

>> I also think that having things in
>> this registry which are also used by the BGP registry is asking for
>> trouble:
>> You wouldn't want the references for the two registries to get out of
>> sync.
>> This seems like a mess to me. Would it be possible for IANA to simply
>> rename
>> the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry to "BGP 
>> and
>> OSPF
>> Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs", and share the registry 
>> between
>> the
>> two protocols? Then have this (and other) document(s) add values to 
>> that
>> registry. That way, the documents that actually define the codepoints 
>> can
>> be
>> put into the registry.
>
> We’ve already had a protracted discussion on the IANA registries. It 
> is
> not possible as BGP advertises some of the attributes in BGP 
> communities
> rather than tunnel attributes (e.g., color).

Yuck. I'll try not to prolong the discussion much further, but did you 
consider the possibility of having some of the attributes appear twice, 
with one saying "For BGP communities only" and the other saying, "For 
OSPF tunnels only"? What a lovely mess. :-(

> Thanks,
> Acee

Cheers,

pr

>> Minor issues:
>>
>> None.
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>> In section 7.1, please add:
>>
>>   [RFC Editor: Please replace "TBD1" in section 3 with the registry 
>> value
>>   allocated by IANA, and remove this note].
>>
>> That will save them from hunting.
>>


-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]