[Pce] Re: 答复: New draft to update IANA registration policy

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Samuel,

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 1:28 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
>
> I support change itself.
>
>
>
> One comment for note/question in the draft:
>
> Question to the WG: The current document updates all
>
> the registries. Should we keep "Standards Action" for
>
> some of them such as flag fields with limited bits?
>
>
>
> I’m personally not worried about that. We should be able to use same
> approach as used for LSP object flags.
>
>
>
> One exception, which I can think of are fixed size objects, which may not
> be allowing TLVs currently (I’m not sure if there is any specific example
> in the list of registries). Do we have any specific plan for those?
>
>
>

I did a quick manual check. We mostly dont have this problem with one
exception of flag fields in sub-objects.

Things to note -
- there are already some subobjects flag field that are IETF review
- some of these have reserved fields that can be easily used
- we could extend by creating a new sub-object type if needed

Thanks!
Dhruv



> Thanks,
>
> Samuel
>
>
>
> *From:* Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 25, 2024 10:17 AM
> *To:* 'Dhruv Dhody' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [Pce] 答复: New draft to update IANA registration policy
>
>
>
> Hi, Dhruv:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your quick draft. I think IETF review is enough because the
> required RFCs needs to be passed all the same stages
>
> Although there maybe some different criteria, the related RFCs can assure
> the interoperability of protocol from different vendors.
>
>
>
> The document is written clearly. If there is no objection, we can move it
> faster to be published.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
> *发件人**:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>] *代表 *Dhruv Dhody
> *发送时间:* 2024年7月23日 5:19
> *收件人:* [e-mail]
> *主题:* [Pce] New draft to update IANA registration policy
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have written a small draft to update the registration policy for all
> "standards action" to "IETF review" for PCEP registry.
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iana-update/
>
>
>
> The approach that the draft currently takes is to make a blanket change to
> IETF-review for all "standards action" registry to allow experimental track
> documents to request allocation. There are some registries where the space
> is tight but IMHO IETF-review is fine -- our WG and LC process should be
> enough to handle the case of less bits which ideally require creating a new
> field/registry as we did in the past for LSP object flags!
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> It might be a good idea to move this quickly as John suggested in his AD
> review of Native-IP draft [1].
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/xBn2_9E9vy6h5AnYEMMf3I9vbqM/
>