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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Mon, 21 September 2015 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0BC1ACCEE; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t7DM2fUxPbph; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0E231ACCE6; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=27573; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1442873601; x=1444083201; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=vDHTPoVc36+oc7vZSLreBsYx/QXu7rVFE0CzkpeFTG0=; b=YlHvmIeG8ZpZqVHu6FGMe/DRdCvNlwZgkZe8S676qmAACYtnRLhfvMqR VltMFjHzeJ2F8ehuqyZe2hcUXcYjZ1E0Wuaxz2Lp6g0iri8FC03tt/Z6F RsZG7UwWI24KjIQxWPZa3adcFEqudfXnTTIIRaly30s4H844rTu8PQnl5 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,569,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217";a="190381297"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Sep 2015 22:13:20 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8LMDK0V024615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:13:20 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:13:19 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:13:19 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:13:19 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Alia Atlas <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis
Thread-Index: AQHQ9LRhm+JodERs+k6Wx1tPPyBAAJ5H1ZoA///CrACAAEOegP//wOqA
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:13:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D225F80A2F2E4aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:13:25 -0000

Hi Alia,

From: Alia Atlas <<>>
Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:59 PM
To: Acee Lindem <<>>
Cc: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <<>>, OSPF WG List <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis


On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <<>> 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


I'm happy to depend on your perspective and the WG to decide the best way forward.



From: Alia Atlas <<>>
Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:36 PM
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <<>>
Cc: OSPF WG List <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis


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.


On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <<>> wrote:
[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.



OSPF mailing list<>