Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Mon, 21 September 2015 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7570A1ACD6D; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXssWGZn2lSn; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 561821ACD6A; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbzf10 with SMTP id zf10so93987687obb.2; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MzgBXRTwXwjbv3Pw86F9ryap7laZAevJ5VrMXw0pItE=; b=PIPo87yRMGdUmYo8FKl0Ieai2QgfS/CKgdDWKGTSjG2/8Dwcqr+DrkYHSN5v8tcSp1 ktvjQZlm7/s4OGfMu0jOxC0wKHXAi35oqv8A29qJpk35vaxw9VHw0A4WLPEkeamMPu0q dEDfqDedla22gbF5G2hbXxzqL5lebvleeCfmZRsbDKmjgCJkh0dV9oGY3ZICjgQlKuVK 033+J8EjdO68dTf+9tebY6fsEjlaqJOf0GoJmsf4b5Z1EdOz1C599rTopaeW77KqzJwB vzzwPVV9gQ1tknj/lqKIvwNg/Qll+V9AA3LLgdOznKBXNIeJurfdNZdQzFxDDde9xlnc ii/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.67.105 with SMTP id m9mr13950205oet.68.1442874781516; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.55.170 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D225F80A.2F2E4%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D225EE98.D2A0B%aretana@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rdHd=raBDqBKtBNMp+-W6imTRaN76aSOZPKc_O3mJRk6A@mail.gmail.com> <D225F4AB.2F280%acee@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rfrBn0vBG=NJX5=OPaGSHD=cRyb5inKQe21ms4bVXpGuA@mail.gmail.com> <D225F80A.2F2E4%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:33:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfCUefp4oqXZ=zSeAenTtANMArCmOeOjTUOzuWcF=gZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c301fcced19a052049763f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Fc3QlqzOHlRAZjR7zEiuTCp1TVM>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:33:05 -0000

Ok - so change the whole range from Unassigned (Standards Action) to
Unassigned (IETF Review)?

Do others have opinions?

Thanks,
Alia

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Alia,
>
> From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:59 PM
> To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
> Cc: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>om>, OSPF WG List <
> ospf@ietf.org>gt;, "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org>gt;, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <
> ospf-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis
>
> Acee,
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Speaking as a WG member:
>>
>> Hi Alvaro, Alia,
>>
>> If we are going to change this, I would propose we change the allocation
>> policy from “Standards Action” to “IETF Review”  as opposed to splitting
>> the range.
>>
>
> That works for me, if you are ok having Experimental stuff mixed in with
> Standards track.  The  former may become
> obsoleted and leave gaps.
>
>
> I guess I’m not worried about the space being contiguous. Also, it seems
> the most common reason to obsolete an experimental draft is that it becomes
> accepted enough to be standards track. For everyone’s edification, here are
> the definitions from RFC 5226:
>
>
>       IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
>             [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
>             RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
>             Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978].  The
>             intention is that the document and proposed assignment will
>             be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or
>             experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to
>             ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
>             impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
>             in an inappropriate or damaging manner.
>
>             To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
>             shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG)
>             documents with an IETF Last Call.
>
>             Examples: IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025],
>             Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005], TLS
>             Handshake Hello Extensions [RFC4366].
>
>       Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track
>             RFCs approved by the IESG.
>
>             Examples: BGP message types [RFC4271], Mobile Node
>             Identifier option types [RFC4283], DCCP Packet Types
>             [RFC4340].
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm happy to depend on your perspective and the WG to decide the best way
> forward.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
>> Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:36 PM
>> To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
>> Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org" <
>> draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org>gt;, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <
>> ospf-chairs@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis
>>
>> Alvaro,
>>
>> Is there a reason not to split up the Unassigned range into Standards
>> Action and RFC Required?
>> Also, are you picking RFC Required over IETF Review [RFC5226]?  The
>> former would open up
>> for Independent Stream RFCs while the latter would not.
>>
>> Can we get opinions from the WG?  I am expecting to do my AD review of
>> this draft and get it
>> moving - hopefully for the Oct 15 telechat - assuming the document is in
>> the fine shape that I
>> expect from the OSPF WG.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <
>> aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [WG Participant Hat On]
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I know that the WG has asked for publication
>>> of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis, but I would like to see a change in the IANA
>>> Considerations Section before moving forward.   Sorry for being so late..
>>>
>>> The ID (and rfc4970) define a registry for OSPF RI TLVs.  Currently, the
>>> only way to get a value assigned is through Standards Action (which
>>> requires a Standards Track RFC).  There is a range reserved for
>>> Experimentation — I understand why these values are not to be assigned
>>> (rfc3692).
>>>
>>> However, there is work that could that could benefit from a less strict
>>> assignment policy, where the code may be in general deployment, and even
>>> enabled by default in products — not what rfc3692 had in mind.  In this
>>> case I am specifically referring to the TTZ work — now that it is on the
>>> Experimental track, it doesn’t meet the requirement for Standards Action
>>> and given the size of potential deployments I don’t think it’s practical to
>>> just pick a value off the range reserved for Experimentation.  I am sure
>>> that, if not right now, other work will also benefit from a less strict
>>> policy.
>>>
>>> Proposal:  redefine the Reserved space so that half of it remains
>>> Reserved (the top half) while the other half uses a different assignment
>>> policy.    I’m proposing RFC Required (rfc5226) as the assignment policy.
>>>
>>> The text in 4970bis already talks about a Standards Track RFC being able
>>> to change the assignment policy for the Reserved space — as long as we’re
>>> doing the bis work, we might as well include this change.
>>>
>>> Given that the ID is already with the AD, I could make the same comment
>>> when the IETF Last Call is issued, but I think we may need WG consensus on
>>> changing the registry — so it might be easier to take care of it now.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Alvaro.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>
>>>
>>
>