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

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.

Thanks,
Acee

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

Alvaro,

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.

Regards,
Alia

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com<mailto:aretana@cisco.com>> wrote:
[WG Participant Hat On]

Hi!

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.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf