[Pce] Fwd: [IANA #1358857] Re: Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

This early allocation is completed.

Thanks!
Dhruv

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:51 AM
Subject: [IANA #1358857] Re: Early code point allocation for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
[e-mail]>


Hi Dhruv and Julien,

We've completed the additional early allocations for this document:

PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry (Section 6.2):

68      COMPUTATION-PRIORITY (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-02-13, expires
2025-02-13)    [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14]
69      EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-02-13,
expires 2025-02-13)      [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14]
70      INVALIDATION (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-02-13, expires
2025-02-13)    [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14]
71      SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-02-13, expires
2025-02-13)     [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14]

PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry(Section 6.3):

6       Mandatory Object missing
21: Missing SR Policy Mandatory TLV (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-02-13,
expires 2025-02-13)     [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14]

26      Association Error
20: SR Policy Identifers Mismatch (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-02-13,
expires 2025-02-13)       [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14]
21: SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier Mismatch (TEMPORARY - registered
2024-02-13, expires 2025-02-13)
[draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14]

TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field registry (Section 6.4):

1       S (Specified-BSID-only) (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-02-13, expires
2025-02-13) [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14]

Please see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep

If the document hasn't been approved for publication by December, we'll
contact you about renewing for another year.

Best regards,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

On Tue Feb 13 05:25:39 2024, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi IANA,
>
> Following the procedure for early allocation as per RFC 7120, we would
> like
> to request early allocation for following code points defined in
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-
> cp-14.html#section-6.2
>  (TBD1-4)
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-
> cp-14.html#section-6.3
>  (TBD6-8)
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-
> cp-14.html#section-6.4
>  (TBD9)
>
> An approval from the AD (in cc) can be found in the email chain below.
>
> Note that there was an earlier allocation request where some
> codepoints
> were already allocated by IANA -
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8GtjtxNWeA9MxpySx6J7XZKmlUc/
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> PCE WG Co-chairs
>
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 6:37 PM John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Approved.
> >
> > —John
> >
> > On Feb 10, 2024, at 1:27 AM, Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > The authors of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp have
> > requested for
> > the early allocation of the codepoint specified in:
> >
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-
> > policy-cp-14.html#section-6.2
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
> > ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14.html*section-
> > 6.2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fkn1X-
> > qBnJV4EMHZM1CiBGd6i2laMtrXwmVcfGt5pdN7gxvPDWukyX1bs4fVtHgbBpAjD7SXOd4$>
> > (TBD1-4)
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-
> > policy-cp-14.html#section-6.3
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
> > ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14.html*section-
> > 6.3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fkn1X-
> > qBnJV4EMHZM1CiBGd6i2laMtrXwmVcfGt5pdN7gxvPDWukyX1bs4fVtHgbBpAjU9kcsWQ$>
> > (TBD6-8)
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-
> > policy-cp-14.html#section-6.4
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
> > ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14.html*section-
> > 6.4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fkn1X-
> > qBnJV4EMHZM1CiBGd6i2laMtrXwmVcfGt5pdN7gxvPDWukyX1bs4fVtHgbBpAj7X0mWuw$>
> > (TBD9)
> >
> > We polled the WG and there were no objections. According to the
> > chairs’
> > review, the RFC 7120 criteria is met. As per the process in the RFC,
> > we now
> > request your approval before reaching out to the IANA for the early
> > allocation.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Dhruv & Julien
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:21 AM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi WG,
> > >
> > > We received no objections and thus will be going ahead with the
> > > early
> > allocation process.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Dhruv & Julien
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 6:53 PM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi WG,
> > >>
> > >> We have received a request from the authors of
> > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp for an early code point
> > allocation
> > for the codepoints listed in -
> > >>
> > >>
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-
> > policy-cp-12.html#section-6.2
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
> > ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.html*section-
> > 6.2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fkn1X-
> > qBnJV4EMHZM1CiBGd6i2laMtrXwmVcfGt5pdN7gxvPDWukyX1bs4fVtHgbBpAjDjb3EYQ$>
> > (TBD1-4)
> > >>
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-
> > policy-cp-12.html#section-6.3
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
> > ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.html*section-
> > 6.3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fkn1X-
> > qBnJV4EMHZM1CiBGd6i2laMtrXwmVcfGt5pdN7gxvPDWukyX1bs4fVtHgbBpAjV1EMUwo$>
> > (TBD6-8)
> > >>
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-
> > policy-cp-12.html#section-6.4
> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
> > ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.html*section-
> > 6.4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fkn1X-
> > qBnJV4EMHZM1CiBGd6i2laMtrXwmVcfGt5pdN7gxvPDWukyX1bs4fVtHgbBpAj9xjQmtA$>
> > (TBD9)
> > >>
> > >> Note that there was an earlier allocation request where some
> > >> codepoints
> > were already allocated by IANA -
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8GtjtxNWeA9MxpySx6J7XZKmlUc/
> > <
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8GtjtxNWeA9MxpySx6J7XZKmlUc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> > gk!Fkn1X-
> > qBnJV4EMHZM1CiBGd6i2laMtrXwmVcfGt5pdN7gxvPDWukyX1bs4fVtHgbBpAjLxgElek$>
> > >> Note that the draft is also undergoing a parallel WGLC -
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ert_k7k5iYq3LWbaTc-
> > aMwRRAbs/
> > <
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ert_k7k5iYq3LWbaTc-
> > aMwRRAbs/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fkn1X-
> > qBnJV4EMHZM1CiBGd6i2laMtrXwmVcfGt5pdN7gxvPDWukyX1bs4fVtHgbBpAj7Q-
> > k9AE$>
> > >>
> > >> RFC 7120 requires one to meet the following criteria to proceed:
> > >>
> > >> b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
> > >> handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
> > >> (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
> > >> in an Internet-Draft.
> > >>
> > >> c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e.,
> > >> if
> > >> there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
> > >> specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
> > >>
> > >> If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria or
> > believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other
> > reason,
> > please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining why. If the
> > chairs
> > hear no objections by Wednesday, Jan 24th, we will kick off the early
> > allocation request.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >> Dhruv & Julien
> >
> >>