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

Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net> Tue, 22 September 2015 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
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 811971A6FBC; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 05:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 o9qDmq6_hONU; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 05:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28411A1A82; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2600:1003:b11b:1931:e127:d7c0:8581:ff2d] (unknown [IPv6:2600:1003:b11b:1931:e127:d7c0:8581:ff2d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A4815407D3; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:50:31 -0400 (EDT)
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> <CAG4d1rfCUefp4oqXZ=zSeAenTtANMArCmOeOjTUOzuWcF=gZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rfCUefp4oqXZ=zSeAenTtANMArCmOeOjTUOzuWcF=gZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7AB9F5A5-91D0-4DBA-8E19-DE8188EBE1F0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <3F217374-243E-4A49-8E9B-054A11B5A5F1@puck.nether.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13A344)
From: Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:50:28 -0400
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Je32rkCpS1rpvVUnDX_a1cTTV04>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@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: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:50:44 -0000

I agree problem should be solved and given the size of the range not splitting it seems reasonable.

-Jon

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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>rg>, "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org>rg>, "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>rg>, "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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf