Re: [pim] [IANA #1266746] expert review for draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing (pim-parameters)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Stig

Yeah, i don't see any hurry, so we can happily change reference to rfc8736bis and have the packing wait in the rfc-editor queue for the bis.
And change bit names to unassigned with next rev too.

I am actually not sure if "unassigned" would always be true or the most easy way to
later define extensions. Maybe there are two extensions drafts for same message at
roughly the same time.

E.g.: If we named the field "Flags Registry" - FR[0] ... FR[7], we could have
the following advantages over "unassigned":

We wouldn't claim a bit is unassigned that another draft may actually be registering
in parallel and get to RFC earlier than our own draft.

We could but also would have to write in text only  like this:
   FR[TBD1] - "explanation/semantic",
   so we do not care about which bit IANA gives to us ultimately,
   and not put into pictures the exact location of the bit. "Read the fine registry", dear implementers.
   
   This primarily avoid the otherwise likely need for early allocations.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:59:39PM -0800, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Hi David
> 
> The IANA considerations look good.
> 
> There is an IETF process issue though. Copying Alvaro who is the AD
> for this document, but he is aware.
> 
> If you see in this draft, and the registry, the bits are marked as
> reserved. But they should have been unassigned.
> This is being fixed with
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-00.html that
> we are trying to get published soon.
> 
> I guess the assert-packing draft publication might wait for that draft
> to be published, so at the time the IANA assignment will be done, the
> registry should be updated to show that these are unassigned.
> 
> Regards,
> Stig
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1:00 PM David Dong via RT
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Stig Venaas and Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang (cc: pim WG),
> >
> > As the designated experts for the PIM-Hello Options registry, can you review the proposed registration in draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing for us? Please see:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing/
> >
> > The due date is March 3rd, 2023.
> >
> > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, we'll make the registration at
> >
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/
> >
> > We'll wait for both reviewers to respond unless you tell us otherwise.
> >
> > With thanks,
> >
> > David Dong
> > IANA Services Specialist
> >
> > On Fri Feb 17 20:56:06 2023, david.dong wrote:
> > > First, in the PIM-Hello Options registry on the Protocol Independent
> > > Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry page located at:
> > >
> > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/
> > >
> > > a single, new registration will be made as follows:
> > >
> > > Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
> > > Length: 0
> > > Name: Packed Assert Capability
> > > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
> > >
> > > As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or
> > > Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the
> > > required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be
> > > completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK.
> >
> 

-- 
---
[e-mail]