[OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10

Hi Jeff, 

I just sent a separate note about draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd from ticket [IANA #992766] to the people on the draft-string-all list. Thanks!

Amanda

On Fri Dec 15 01:35:11 2017, jefftant.ietf@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Amanda,
> 
> Please note, in the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd regretfully,
> the authors have requested an allocation from OSPFv2 Extended Link
> Opaque LSA TLVs while it should have been from OSPFv2 Extended Link
> TLV Sub-TLVs registry.
> 
> Updated draft has been published (draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-
> 08) and email to update the allocation (value of 6 from OSPFv2
> Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry) has been sent to iana-issues-
> comment@iana.org  (so 6 is unavailable)
> 
> 
> Back to draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload OSPFv3 allocations-  it is quite
> complicated and requires resolution.
> I believe, the registry in question would be “OSPFv3 Extend-LSA Sub-
> TLV”, please note - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions
> has already suggested values 3(used already by the base draft for
> route-tag) to 14 for their use.
> 
> Hopefully I haven’t caused even more confusion than before, we just
> need to sort out who is getting what ;-)
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Amanda Baber via RT
> <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org>
> Reply-To: <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org>
> Date: Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 16:55
> Cc: <mnanduri@ebay.com>, <luay.jalil@verizon.com>, <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: [OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for
> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As Peter pointed out, there appear to be issues with these
> registrations.
> 
> Is the first registry, "OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry," meant to
> refer to  "OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs" or "OSPFv2 Extended
> Link TLV Sub-TLVs"? In the first of those, values 4, 5, and 11 are
> available. In the second, values 4 and 5 are not available. Please see
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters
> 
> For the second registry in the document, if "OSPFV3 Router Link TLV
> Registry" refers to "OSPFv3 Router LSA Link Types," value 4 is not
> available. Please see
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters
> 
> For the third registry in the document, if "BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry"
> refers to "BGP-LS NLRI-Types," value 1101 is available, but because
> this is a Specification Required registry, we'll have to ask the
> designated experts to confirm that this is OK. Can you confirm that
> this is the correct registry?
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters
> 
> You can see a list of registries here:
> 
> https://www.iana.org/protocols
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Amanda Baber
> Lead IANA Services Specialist
> 
> On Thu Dec 14 08:52:23 2017, ppsenak@cisco.com wrote:
> > Hi Acee,
> >
> > On 14/12/17 01:39 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > > Please provide allocations for the code points in
> > > draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.txt:
> > >
> > > OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry
> >
> > more precisely, these should be allocated from "OSPFv2 Extended Link
> > TLV
> > Sub-TLVs" registry. The text in the draft should be updated as well
> > to
> > reflect the correct registry name. At this point it says "OSPF
> > Extended
> > Link TLVs Registry", which would suggest it is from a different, top
> > level TLV registry.
> >
> > Also I see that value 5 has been taken by RFC8169 already.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Peter
> >
> > >
> > > i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - Suggested value 5
> > >
> > > ii) Remote IPv4 address sub-TLV - Suggested value 4
> > >
> > > iii) Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV - Suggested Value 11
> > >
> > > OSPFV3 Router Link TLV Registry
> > >
> > > i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - suggested value 4
> > >
> > > BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry [RFC7752]
> > >
> > > i)Link-Overload TLV - Suggested 1101
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Acee
> > >
> > > On 12/13/17, 2:57 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Acee Lindem has requested publication of draft-ietf-ospf-link-
> > >> overload-10
> > >> as Proposed Standard on behalf of the OSPF working group.
> > >>
> > >> Please verify the document's state at
> > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OSPF mailing list
> > > OSPF@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> > > .
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> 