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

"Amanda Baber via RT" <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org> Fri, 15 December 2017 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98590129406 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:15:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AmpHL_LDUFoS for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E56C126CC7 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from request3.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1032E0CCA; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:15:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by request3.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 71F25C20667; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:15:07 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: amanda.baber
From: Amanda Baber via RT <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org>
Reply-To: iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <5A323BC6.80209@cisco.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-992646@icann.org> <151319505743.30097.13501863117618500315.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D6573193.E1585%acee@cisco.com> <5A323BC6.80209@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <rt-4.2.9-7308-1513365307-552.992646-9-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #992646
X-Managed-BY: RT 4.2.9 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org
CC: luay.jalil@verizon.com, akatlas@gmail.com, pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com, shraddha@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.com, ospf@ietf.org, ppsenak@cisco.com, hannes@gredler.at, akr@cisco.com, jefftant.ietf@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, mnanduri@ebay.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:15:07 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ySdVbjfu6LLl5y71WsICbdDyhZ0>
Subject: [OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:15:11 -0000

Hi Acee, Peter,

Acee replied: 

> >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.

Are we making the assignments in OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry, which does have the values available? It looks like Peter wrote below that these should instead be allocated from the second option, the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry, where values 4 and 5 have already been assigned.

thanks,
Amanda

On Thu Dec 14 08:52:23 2017, ppsenak@cisco.com 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)" <acee@cisco.com> 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
> > OSPF@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> > .
> >
>