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

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Amanda, Jeff,

On 15/12/17 02:34 , Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Hi Amanda,
>
> Please note, in the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd regretfully, the authors have requested an allocation from OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs while it should have been from OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry.
>
> Updated draft has been published (draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-08) and email to update the allocation (value of 6 from OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry) has been sent to [e-mail]  (so 6 is unavailable)
>
>
> Back to draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload OSPFv3 allocations-  it is quite complicated and requires resolution.
> I believe, the registry in question would be “OSPFv3 Extend-LSA Sub-TLV”, please note - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions has already suggested values 3(used already by the base draft for route-tag) to 14 for their use.

right, the correct registry should be OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLV. 
Unfortunately, this registry has not yet been created as it comes from 
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend, which has not yet been published as RFC.

Now, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions have origially 
defined values 3-14 out of "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLV" registry, but 
only values 3 to 6 would be needed. We should make early IANA allocation 
for these values (3,4,5,6) immediately as the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA 
sub-TLV" becomes available - the reason is that there are implementation 
of OSPFv3 SR out there.

Then draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload can take the next value, e.g. 7 from 
"OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLV" registry.

thanks,
Peter


>
> Hopefully I haven’t caused even more confusion than before, we just need to sort out who is getting what ;-)
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF <[e-mail]> on behalf of Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 16:55
> Cc: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
>
>      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
>
>      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
>
>      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
>
>      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
>      > > .
>      > >
>      >
>
>
>
>      _______________________________________________
>      OSPF mailing list
>      [e-mail]
>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>