[Pce] Re: Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-10

Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Mon, 24 June 2024 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
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 90536C14F71D for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dhruvdhody-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7NMX-cqNos9U for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-x2b.google.com (mail-oa1-x2b.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 748B5C14F6A6 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-x2b.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-24542b8607fso2034203fac.1 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dhruvdhody-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1719217288; x=1719822088; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Lh5ugPxB42xZKO8mNdkegF9jDr4fsb/iOXO31j5qUMA=; b=deAKiWyfX/GcU2eNdb+2cqNqYc40nMBi0iel13XzFPnLFVbwcqDmWd501eNz8c7o66 tNG7vDnTo1/q032Rrjb0jn4zs3O/mtp5QlUePLtUFWDr4c0gCgm/cR6BDjo/QYt2RbAN y89C1W2O7VJ0lzgsYqpwMMT/97qCCl8jigVmvw9C4b9TGsRF65zfsJw1Hti9TLbaOBmk BbDZIhfz5FPGCsLEg6mEHIG9oUSIQk6jbKLwVxBeoOFk+pKt4VJrYpY1sIkEpLdD5YC8 rE74yhCavIl7zqHLvs7osjjCC9s2A9+v/se02f7Uucx0Rli2hr77iOskKPM69zPcdJaJ uEnA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719217288; x=1719822088; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Lh5ugPxB42xZKO8mNdkegF9jDr4fsb/iOXO31j5qUMA=; b=dBKnbgjP/HU+36nFA40TDIi8aY+3/cXYiIEvDE7EICLOtcxWl+CqOKPZAuKAziF2hm SP0nso2C3Su0jPVRQFK1YeBgVjLx00e7Vv8gjCgVqq9V6qDQoT5TaBzLrLnRri/8QIMw kBDQZPww2BWbZwE2AcQUladwqZ/WdTlFUA6ug/YaW82V5uj8vSvWOdT110W7n0IKv1yC K7HWqfH/WUfpGLmr5FhE5JFu4E98ruStnO8bUUXe+OV1ijvALQySxYgapf9IouuEvrlU cMtoPuErePun6L2+9KzrbqHdhlyJWJ19ICsMaGFlhcHE0d0OnyPPlAK1Lt5t96Rw1PeI OFBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwTLuj74rlYhA57INhHxd9LrCDYKMIr7N4t2Ju1KYI4W1fCmjPc gwcZ01LhgedOQzbubqSiK7gx+EPRBQWjFvbB2NMkVbsNVBFfdCykICyvE7UvS31RMq0rmr0k7pr ZDD7Mruvk8pGhUJekY40CwM46OWMNZWIbqBR9cA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHCsN1rdMMwyshLd9HLIpLk9uwxL91+la/UVaDbpYzdhflsE7e6mwYu1dkdBPXQyP3qSyVw0O0jX+UZMkX6P3s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:8192:b0:24c:5bd5:1934 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-25d06e3673amr3849520fac.39.1719217288461; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP7zK5Z0rma5NmBX-vYt3WqhfgpTqOQ3GK-fMRTFr7iqKgDsfQ@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR07MB4131895F48A1B1047E9DC36BA0CA2@AM0PR07MB4131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB4131895F48A1B1047E9DC36BA0CA2@AM0PR07MB4131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:20:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAP7zK5YYK5EmUMC0g0DY-hdRaAY-+J7S=pQk2n6vdA86_kZpvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c55c22061b9e77ea"
Message-ID-Hash: 4BS6RJRTLT7Q4UCVGTY4BNRKG52MDAVT
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4BS6RJRTLT7Q4UCVGTY4BNRKG52MDAVT
X-MailFrom: dd@dhruvdhody.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pce.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Pce] Re: Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-10
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/NzkbWgKt-iuYOW5LVrh-cNBtALw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pce-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pce-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pce-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Tom,



On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 12:25 PM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
> Sent: 22 June 2024 09:41
>
> Hi WG,
>
> We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo for
> an early code point allocation for the codepoints listed in -
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-10.html#table-7
>
> These are the codepoints for the latest changes made to align with
> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con as per -
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/U2AIec7Vk9LomZM-LlvhxGywQgA/
>
> The chairs would like to know if there are any objections to adding these
> new metric types and keeping a range aside for user defined metrics.
>
> <tp>
> Looking at what I think is the right table, I see that the value zero is
> reserved which I always think is a good start.  But this request allows the
> value of 255 as part of the range which I always think a bad idea.  I think
> that this, the maximum value, should be reserved e.g. lest the range is
> fully assigned and a value is needed to act as an escape.  For such
> purposes, I think one value is enough so I think that the range should end
> at 254 nd tnot 255
>
>
Dhruv: Looking at our existing allocations at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml

We do not mark 255 (or equivalent MAX) as reserved.

If we want to do it, I prefer we discuss this independently and apply it
across all PCEP registries!
I will also write to IANA to find out if they have a suggestion on what
ought to be the best practice for this!

Thanks!
Dhruv



> Tom Petch
>
> Further, 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 Monday, July 8th, we will kick off the early allocation
> request.
>
> Note that there was an earlier allocation request where some codepoints
> were already allocated by IANA -
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8jv4slxI_K3p4qqUPRlAjSgScOA/
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>