Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
Sent: 07 February 2021 04:36

Hi Tom, WG,

On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 5:36 PM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> From: Pce <[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 01 February 2021 10:54
>
> Hi WG,
>
> We have received a request from the authors of
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp for an early code point allocation.
>
> <tp>
>
> Which code point or code points?
>
> This I-D asks IANA to allocate eleven values; to which of these does the early allocation request apply?
>

All of them.

This I-D is asking for allocations from 3 existing sub-registries:

ASSOCIATION Type Field
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-02#section-7.1)
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#association-type-field

PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-02#section-7.2)
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object

PCEP TLV Type Indicators
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-02#section-7.3)
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-indicators

Please feedback to the list if you feel the RFC 7120 criteria listed
in the original email does not meet any (or all) of the codepoints
allocation requests.


<tp>
I am sure that IANA will cope because they always do, but it will be by reading between the lines, applying intelligence to what the authors may have meant, and so on.  Editorially this is a poor I-D (as yet), and that quality verges on the technical aspects.

Thus 7.3 says the I-D defines five new TLV and lists four; this also occurs in the body of the I-D.  A reader might also notice the absence of TBD2 and wonder.

Or the new Association.  Thus needs an identifier.  Trouble is, the I-D uses (at least) three different ones; this looseness of terminology can lead to problems down the line.  (MPLS I see as a classic in how not to specify IANA registries and I see this heading the same way).

Likewise the identifiers used in s.7 do not match those in current use, a good way of storing up future trouble.

Is the specification adequate?  Only if you do not take it literally and interpret the words the way you think they should have been.

Tom Petch

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

> Tom Petch
>
> RFC 7120 requires 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, February 15th, we will kick off
> the early allocation request.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv & Julien
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce