[Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 18 July 2017 15:19 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513A1131686 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 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] 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 rR_ZD0AHo3Uu for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AAA9128DE5 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v6IFJknZ025550 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:19:46 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-8d56.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.141.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v6IFJhb1025522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:19:45 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: pce@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:19:42 +0100
Message-ID: <06bf01d2ffd9$494bdba0$dbe392e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdL/2TRAy7FbyRAmRvC/dNULikyoKg==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-23202.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.838-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--23.838-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: Ox2/UrmX7l4iwqAs+LzaXwlPus/MSqC72aYdnwn7qHfagsZM0qVv167m YDa7MoGaRTLulOUYEzBE48pCXoMz9FI3mP8aC0PBHcQQBuf4ZFsgzzoB6jqxgvgnJH5vm2+gj3W VWG0MD4dCsy09psGvW+vLlgE5EvLDQyNrw2ay5cYlcqT+ugT9EFxIyn/X4SmnnKRrn2xogKgs7E Lqy7JDxolNJDgbSFZAI6Y3v9C3zJ7Mi6swfqIoFHBRIrj8R47F6Jj6zYvfFARnnK6mXN72m1fu8 Gdzd6cnubZzuzgbENpc0VoWgLAr1MTJ9OjOlxGKStpI+4+KLgAsCc2iFTIxreagZGThUgZE/qsg +OKw7BWPi/P84jAUbxYC4jP1GnU/ROmI6EeYuPuGuzokAQvW7rQ0n3DEfu2TRfmFzyKgHb6Xa1t KERfDPiewBpL5t7aRfBCuLgXPBQZZMh09pfOKJ0g5Iem1vm3HlavqJJda2A8GW3hFnC9N1YnV4F Kib7SLCZgWCmmrpkIKDYVhCsJwlAe1vNu551eNKWuiyZLRI4AsmbwU4T1YtVvo8FSqar5SCMWIH qnNY083SgLQ3k27qnqalk5QVXTVs/+w07Y/y4fBVprK8rvWX5c5WjRQ970UV0aMY26wA5xCcg19 0NG0LgLcypum82RLs8/Ux/YUxkJB3odpHWTw3JEbNXwHGDRx1Ga2L87qPQJP3ulIgoI/+W0tkyt 7B3wuZTBR+5xq2JV0HLOh+hqZdLChV1HGsZT0GLXhwJ3YV6Oe8Eev9oWczpJ5XtPVefA9arnF2G gIBf1agpy3GlCV9I34irfzSATSf/9oLiCflNieAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCHOI0tZ7A+B36C0ePs 7A07QKmARN5PTKc
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LKsonDdI3gIhd3FNix2xtUTEjZg>
Subject: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:19:52 -0000
Hi, Per the chairs' request today, I had another look at the experimental codepoints draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01/. Sorry to entirely rewrite your draft ;-) My meta point that I have raised before is that I think you are assigning way too many experimental code points. I do not want to be blocking on WG process on this point and will accept that I am in the rough *if* the chairs believe that that is the case. The background to my thought is BCP 82 that says: In many, if not most cases, reserving a single value for experimental use will suffice. While it may be tempting to reserve more in order to make it easy to test many things at once, reserving many may also increase the temptation for someone using a particular value to assume that a specific experimental value can be used for a given purpose exclusively. I agree that one code point is probably limiting, but I also think that * 4 messages * 8 objects * 8 TLVs would be at the high end of what is needed. The other points are below. Thanks, Adrian --- Metadata I think you are changing an existing registry definition. This is different from making an allocation from a registry, so you are updating the RFC that created the registry. You need to add the "Updates: RFC 5440" text. --- Title s/for/for the/ --- Abstract s/IETF Consensus/IETF Review/ --- Abstract OLD This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of PCEP. NEW This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies for these three registries to mark some of the code points as assigned for Experimental Use. END --- Requirements Language I don't think you need 2119 language in this document. See my comments on Section 5. --- 1. Introduction The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. This is a somewhat old definition of PCEP that doesn't account for delegation and PCE-initiated LSPs. --- 1. Introduction In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top- level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as described in [RFC8126]. Specifically, new assignments are made via RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists). Early allocation [RFC7120] provides some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved for features that are considered appropriately stable. I'm not sure you should seek to redefine "IETF Consensus". The citation of 8126 should be enough and you can cut the paragraph there. Anyway s/IETF Consensus/IETF Review/ --- 1. Introduction With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run experiment, it is important that the value won't collide not only with existing codepoints but any future allocation. s/run experiment/run experiments/ --- 1. Introduction OLD This document thus set apart some codepoints in PCEP registry and subregistries for experimental usage. NEW This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies for these three registries to mark some of the code points as assigned for Experimental Use. See [RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of experimental codepoints. END --- 2. PCEP Messages OLD Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation with new PCEP messages. The suggested range is 246-255. NEW PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets aside message types 246-255 for experimentation as described in Section 6.1. END --- 3. PCEP Objects OLD Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation with new PCEP objects. The suggested range is 224-255. NEW PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This document sets aside object identifiers 224-255 for experimentation as described in Section 6.2. END --- 4. PCEP TLVs OLD Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation with new PCEP TLVs. The suggested range is 65280-65535. NEW PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets aside object identifiers 65280-65535 for experimentation as described in Section 6.3. END --- OLD 5. Handling of unknown experimentation NEW 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation END --- 5. Handling of unknown experimentation OLD A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, MUST reject the entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object", defined as per [RFC5440]. NEW A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. END --- 6.1. New PCEP Messages OLD Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the following allocations: +---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | +---------+-------------+-------------------+ | 246-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | +---------+-------------+-------------------+ NEW IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this registry to read as follows: 0-245 IETF Review 246-255 Experimental Use IANA is also requested to mark the values 246-255 in the registry accordingly. END --- 6.2. New PCEP Objects OLD Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the following allocations: +---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | +---------+-------------+-------------------+ | 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | +---------+-------------+-------------------+ NEW IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this registry to read as follows: 0-245 IETF Review 224-255 Experimental Use IANA is also requested to mark the values 224-255 in the registry accordingly. END --- 6.3. New PCEP TLVs OLD Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the following allocations: +------------+-------------+-------------------+ | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | +------------+-------------+-------------------+ |65280-65535 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | +------------+-------------+-------------------+ NEW IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this registry to read as follows: 0-65279 IETF Review 65280-65535 Experimental Use IANA is also requested to mark the values 65280-65535 in the registry accordingly. END --- DELETE 7. Allocation Policy The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 6 is "Experimental". As per [RFC8126], IANA does not record specific assignments for any particular use for this policy. As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and experimental code points are freed up. END NOTE The meaning of the first paragraph is now achieved in Section 6. The second paragraph is ambiguous as experimental codepoints are not "freed up" in any sense that the IETF can be aware of. END --- 8. Security Considerations ADD [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come, accidentally from another experiment. END --- 10.1. Normative References DELETE [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. END --- 10.2. Informative References Add RFC 3692 --- Appendix A. Other Codepoints Was this intended to be "Other PCEP Registries"? ---
- [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-cod… Dhruv Dhody