Re: [pim] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-02

Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 13 August 2019 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9571200E5; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 uoQNZ0SvkTSl; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 647581200E3; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com with SMTP id i7so5335098vsp.0; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Wz4pqtP1Oe5ayn7Uv14OcNC1Yli017pcwKHRLa/Anrk=; b=HEbeWLJrNU+U8flTP3l3LnVaWmU+HLBn+Z4vdBxbrYXmvP7G9LjoTLwldpY2fOn8is 4pBWmgId5m9nl4YNc57Jc22sgsBej1p3l56bFv2LpWkvQUL7MaGMrbqs1Yw+5jxhjwFb 7VItQjgkNOY0k/KwYT/wWsZB3PD9noEag63GCwNK2pOn8ocr7EAfnbKIoxn74Wk0/XvR wd05yy9CEFnB9araoU9dlG4B0vNVKdgqeN9Axb4ZRjzgQ0884MecvhZuE3zEp2tSRt/2 syMtTm+ZmzMTkAn96s9I58Qkb05F74uyUUoiwcuZtP6qD9mm3uc5Z4ijTpSpAzP/ZnjG usDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Wz4pqtP1Oe5ayn7Uv14OcNC1Yli017pcwKHRLa/Anrk=; b=fUDG2K1VzfISyrwRcs274Mg9mMtZMMphWOiDJfVPQUV8yyD3qO654Hf6azYksLG8lY FymJa5G2nylHjIkNv4dbF8jFA+DXmJxa2/DAGNQEMLvxTsvigohD8CNZ9z1c10nKsRCm hipZ+emHpFbp6a1wiFRwFyrnUgJVVnBxjrSQz3GWuzzByd1tlVaD59WgdUoj212jnVcP 0Y4cezAJjkcSjXSbGoACBlqIkFsWyVoxidE6zAL8OkaF3mUiCk8FT2fmRAQxdiMPe+1i vINViMfnQcW8vRKzzgxnJaDOELhxC7sdrxrgIVa1vVGKzaCgeNc/gMs5IskP2tL+0u+J vLyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVD/AZ2ObkA3gTP2XAZrh9W60BV6+N4WyUoo8bLHohehSwCMrYx lp5ceZNGbzd81IT3bt4gGJJSVdhsW6xc0jWEBxk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyJdhe8cSd+y18xP/9IpDL0+BXD2ZUviLQ8YaB7HGrL4c55LTbjrN3foaZI08AJxcy1Tff9Dl8ArQ8Zk2dsb34=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:eb59:: with SMTP id x25mr3588915vso.187.1565687579486; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156521737004.8428.3059445818397894106.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAA6qS9rAowbANxf0PtUR5KYwNewGhP1d9XWS-OyDPAzVLFYRpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHANBt+wRGx+=W+3VDp18o9+ZHNTRJiUo_59Hcouv2peeYcJrg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBt+wRGx+=W+3VDp18o9+ZHNTRJiUo_59Hcouv2peeYcJrg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:42:47 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA6qS9p+s+NeLMhWrqr_did3t7HsJMQ2hYhR+1rUYDwvzS3jOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Cc: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000012c91058ffc0cc0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/9XgnlU6uyTLWeQtMZPsZf3C11_E>
Subject: Re: [pim] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-02
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:13:03 -0000

Thank you!

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:32 PM Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Re point 1:
> Rather than delaying this draft several months, probably at least
> until after next IETF, I would suggest that we have a separate
> discussion on experimental/vendor reservations. We already have one WG
> draft that might need a type soon. I think we've avoided
> experimental/vendor reservations in the past since we had so little
> space, but it is something to consider now. If we decide to do this,
> that can be a separate small draft.
>
> Point 2 and 4:
> We can put in the recommended order of usage. We also got the chance
> to suggest this to IANA if needed when they assign types to future
> drafts. I agree about using LSB bits first since that may help future
> type expansion if needed. We can put it in the draft, but this is also
> something we as a WG should keep in mind.
>
> Point 3:
> Given that we should use the space in the order 13.0, 13.1, ... it
> would be many years until we would potentially consider touching 15.
> Since the types are only used for RFCs approved by the pim WG, we are
> in control of this. If we do a draft for experimental/vendor
> reservations, then that could maybe also mark 15 as reserved. I think
> "reserved" mostly makes sense when assignments don't require IETF/WG
> approval in general, and the IETF/WG wants to ensure they have control
> of at least parts of the space.
>
> The draft will go to IETF last call and we can take your input as part
> of the last call input. I'll address at least points 2 and 4 then.
>
> Thanks for the input. If you have further thoughts, or anyone else in
> the WG does, please follow-up.
> Stig
>
> I stripped the cc-list a bit, removing the IETF wide addresses.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:04 PM Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Authors,
> >  This draft is very much needed and it gives a simple solution.
> >  Few suggestions/thoughts on this draft.
> > 1. Could you please consider reserving a few types are experimental /
> vendor specific usage
> > 2. Though obvious, it might be better to mention that the order of usage
> recommended is 13.0, 13.1, . . . rather than 13.0, 14.0.
> > 3. Thought 48 types is a very big space to expand wouldn't it be better
> to keep 15.x as reserved for the time being.
> >  Over all my suggestion is
> > 13.0 -14.11 unassigned
> > 14.12-14.15 experimental
> > 15.x reserved
> >  4. Should this draft make a recommendation to use the reserved bits
> starting from LSB rather than the present usage pattern of MSB first?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anish Peter
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:06 AM Mike McBride via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mike McBride has requested publication of
> draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-02 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PIM
> working group.
> >>
> >> Please verify the document's state at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pim mailing list
> >> pim@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pim mailing list
> > pim@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>