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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Mon, 21 September 2015 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6449D1A899D; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:57:11 -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 n7eSirPkMR6p; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEB5D1A887F; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=12815; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1442872629; x=1444082229; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=d62rOWa2326xrHNRraVEUaU1R7hzat6h1+zqVOvEteI=; b=lw7o0Y0SKvuJNFfpSAcntm+2xY1qQ/jplMLj6tP7hXIHI0loB74SGU+d vaEK3MVlmXm1bb8GMIsOt/6gokoi/Xmw2FxtKGW8UPdXSor0ps4puHbhN SQz9I4h1Y1YuCCOEqo1hPuv6lNT9rZ4JexTpzxuj40gaNsG9nB0EYlw56 g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.17,569,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="34296151"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2015 21:57:08 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8LLv7lS022184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:57:07 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:57:07 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:57:07 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:57:06 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Alia Atlas <>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis
Thread-Index: AQHQ9LRhm+JodERs+k6Wx1tPPyBAAJ5H1ZoA///CrAA=
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:57:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D225F4AB2F280aceeciscocom_"
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 21:57:11 -0000

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.


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<>