Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-01.txt
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 13 March 2017 19:47 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7F9129AC4; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 n3nkPGDTeGlb; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FCE2129AC5; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2DJlE2Y003608; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:47:14 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.251.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2DJjwYx002308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:47:12 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Luca Martini' <lmartini@monoski.com>, "'Andrew G. Malis'" <agmalis@gmail.com>, 'George Swallow' <swallow.ietf@gmail.com>, 'Elisa Bellagamba' <Elisa.bellagamba@gmail.com>
References: <058601d21988$e15b2820$a4117860$@olddog.co.uk> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C85DDC31DC@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAA=duU2gRSmXvHU4Pt-Xq58eM0t_FjMK0W3UpZrE2yN+gq1COw@mail.gmail.com> <58A0F649.7090301@monoski.com> <01b901d2862b$4e449980$eacdcc80$@olddog.co.uk> <58ADD2B3.8040101@monoski.com> <01f301d2911f$a6354b90$f29fe2b0$@olddog.co.uk> <58C02112.90403@monoski.com>
In-Reply-To: <58C02112.90403@monoski.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:46:00 -0000
Message-ID: <028e01d29c32$9ed6a290$dc83e7b0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQM4vo8J6wBQZFbSvY6b5rTwOAF7nwH7KBPWAn2FA1kCSZrYWAGDYMnkATlv9o8C+4w3GwD5u1lvnls8FHA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22940.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--22.713-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--22.713-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 6lay9u8oTUOnykMun0J1wkrHeoSQjqUcewkrNztQZRradW4iYSMjUae7 nmhJA6kzOgiczDGxXU5fOhWPDXG5idq72IXmYAV7JrUxoq6hvw9+Mk6ACsw4Jlvym/gvSH4i0Du 2Dq3CQeu1uiY9nZpuVApdVTQY21h/WZQyrwf9n7zcWo5Vvs8MQlAI6wCVrE3vLkqBRyyjuhWcqq thcB00+akOAx94vw/ekRGShqSzBVn7LVBcLRTRGGivjLE8DPtZ+qTrCpYSyMJ9WQH9y/pSXXFD0 I0jlEDdlzFc/zKmggsgnvrgPYqDAhqT9VoxtP2le0i2wcB24/G9vtwsX5fX6J6fSoF3Lt+M9Ngs mL8Bq9hvsMaOJSZ5bPK/JmYKoJWpsETAF81ZvkKpuD25aEtgt/ioIsi7Sa0gsneuamRRT5M6W33 UwHDV5ufOVcxjDhcwAYt5KiTiutkLbigRnpKlKU0Pn8oFtLCc/N9/P5Y462I=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/08FXt6K0g6s5uqjsX9xBmEgZoaE>
Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <db3546@att.com>, pals@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-01.txt
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:47:23 -0000
Thanks Luca, Let's kick it up stairs. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@monoski.com] > Sent: 08 March 2017 15:20 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Andrew G. Malis'; 'George Swallow'; 'Elisa Bellagamba' > Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; 'BRUNGARD, > DEBORAH A'; pals@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-01.txt > > HI! Adrian, > I followed your initial suggestion and put al lthese ranges in the > Expert review range , and created an expert guideline section. > > With this version -04 we should be good to go! > Thanks. > Luca > > > On 02/27/17 10:33, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > > >>>>>> Section 8.1 > >>>>>> The values 128 through 254 are assigned using FCFS. You cannot then > >>>>>> attempt to further constrain how the values are used (e.g., "for > >>>>>> vendor proprietary extensions"), and you should avoid the word > >>>>>> "reserved" since it has special meaning for IANA. > >>>> ??? i want the vendor proprietary extensions to be FCFS, does this not > >>>> say that ? > >>>> the point is that if something is not a proprietary extension it should > >>>> not use this. > >>>> for example it prevents people like me from using FEC type 128 for a > >>>> standard protocol ...;-) > >>> Afraid it doesn't > >>> FCFS means "open season". Anyone can get a FCFS code point for any use. > >>> Again, the AD can help sort this out. > > |> Yes , FCFS is open , and this range is also designated for vendor > > |> proprietary extensions. The intention is that something in this range > > |> would never become IETF standard. > >> Can IANA follow the FCFS process while this document designates this > >> range as vendor proprietary ? > >> if someone violates that rule, then other implementations have no duty > >> to support these extensions as they are not standard. > >> > >> If you think that this will not work , I can change it to just IETF review. > > No. The only rules are the rules in the registry. That is, you tell IANA how to > assign values, and they do that. Someone coming along later is bound only by the > IANA rules and not by additional words in your RFC. > > > > So you can choose from 5226, but sounds to me that you want: > > - a registry to be kept of values used by vendors (i.e., not just an > > unregulated space for them to play in) > > - to stop people grabbing from the vendor space when they should > > be writing RFCs > > I suggest you use "Expert Review" [RFC5226] and describe in your document (as > you would be required to) the rules that the Designated Expert must apply. > These could be: > > - Not used for protocol extensions that should be standardised > > - Only use for vendor-specific uses > > - Must have a clear indication of the vendor > > - Should have a contact email address that is not an individual > > > > (Otherwise, IETF review) > > > > A > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pals mailing list > > Pals@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals > >
- [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-status-re… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-statu… Luca Martini
- Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-statu… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-statu… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-statu… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-statu… Luca Martini
- Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-statu… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-statu… Luca Martini
- Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-statu… Adrian Farrel