Re: [Pals] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stewart,

On 9/16/15 8:32 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> On 14/09/2015 14:04, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Is there a particular reason to request that the assigned MPLS VCCV CC
>> Type be bit 3?
>>
>>
>> .
>>
> This is carried in a  bit field - one bit per CC type so that the
> receiving PE can
> determine the set of CC types that its peer can support. The three previous
> types used bit 0, 1, 2. It was therefore tidy if this used bit 3.
> 
> Please see:
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#pwe3-parameters-11
> 
> 
> and look for
> 
> MPLS VCCV Control Channel (CC) Types

Yes, I understand all that.  However, we generally do not direct IANA to
use a specific value.  Documents should request the allocation of a
value from that registry and IANA will determine the assigned value.

Regards,
Brian