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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Amanda, 

On 12/14/17, 7:55 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>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

Sounds good to me.

>
>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

Let’s defer this for now. We don’t even have early allocation for the
registries yet and this would be requested for “OSPFv3 Extended LSAs”.
Sorry for not seeing this in my initial E-mail. We recently reinstated the
OSPFv3 specification since OSPFv3 Extended LSAs is being progressed.

>
>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

Sounds good, I’ve copied Hannes and Adrian.

Thanks,
Acee


>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, [e-mail] 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)" <[e-mail]> 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
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> > .
>> >
>> 
>
>
>