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

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Mon, 21 September 2015 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F051A908C; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NetKPr-OscSh; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2F11A7001; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4731; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1442870878; x=1444080478; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=aayisUWVJiXfzoBJRHz/9ocZwnALGeWE1qaTfWh9GEM=; b=OZwfp59DCmOpQIY6BNmyk4jNSkzeoOtyMjEdS5UqcrHK6GV/4lyCUInD 8V3VksrGKmYnYHf1U9W//3+o/M/i2/JFnP0PLSK6A1yTDWZyt/TTdCNre H2oyHoyuRr4BJhmEtyyjsyADuJNDCQ2xddLA86W0cVGFFTj1pC4fXflIa 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,569,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217";a="190199352"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2015 21:27:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com (xch-rcd-012.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8LLRvrH008406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:27:57 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-012.cisco.com ( by XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:27:56 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ( by xch-rcd-012.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:27:56 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:27:56 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis
Thread-Index: AQHQ9LRhm+JodERs+k6Wx1tPPyBAAA==
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:27:55 +0000
Message-ID: <D225EE98.D2A0B%aretana@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D225EE98D2A0Baretanaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/MJhVAfcBv1Q8WBQL3l8XATjXx1A>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [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 21:28:00 -0000

[WG Participant Hat On]


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.