IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] Stig/*: draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis problem / suggestion

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 08 March 2023 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.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 32CCEC15C510; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:49:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kXU1avixZrol; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (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 0DA20C159A1D; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id x7so143606pff.7; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 13:49:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678312167; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date :mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=slK5Uy45aL909PHp+jxK5dXQ0WKzecEftOVc01vvyRQ=; b=kzS+8Er8Eob6Xr5oi/1r87uBtSpnhdQ5919pQ16ry/dVJcXTlbzIA2T/5EDTnmShet YL+eCFR/AGX0sSbagRSfnkaT35kplvgpd9BfCqraPjYEkH+csAGoftB2z5hsJVeco7nK nMQaWDplhgGQaZ1HnPTpdmjzMUe+hYj5FRqQPCNpxMbfBjD/vLxHEgKq14jgT94SzTSw y0zA+n/G7QuwI55jejGZ2L2tlWOOKQw5LA7ZaeNA0Ux1CBmkhEt0wm193NyLdRys/084 cdha2o1dmQ6n276pz7qTD2FExMKZwSMFLx3erdER/wjkI95IqYEK4uOEqXIbEV8NSl3k NBzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678312167; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date :mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=slK5Uy45aL909PHp+jxK5dXQ0WKzecEftOVc01vvyRQ=; b=IANiROETtwCLU6JMVTKH8tmVyzL+JVMin3kPlZ8vQpUIaoFD+mGQGKv4aKw6f1C1XB MLSfzLyMsGcQGvZ6bQR4jqV+dITeZ2h93R1ZTgWMVZJIJEuD6Vf1S8gCzyBdFrarcKsM Y9wLx5SvXhc4jBOgkQ2t2bLmKKVDIaBM2bhuo+QuFTs6wiPI+7iO8hlrrXd74lOhNXx7 TSaQENpT4k0HD8X/Ojlo1o3/QnNtSAwh16qRAAwey8u4Pv5WE3DjoaQyWSOsmkurl+Bs 2kyQBq9z3HPXMmQJPVXpLomYmuvLdyOfnScSYe+pfxVqPx/I7fhrUEA4IniCO8R3qBUo 4mhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKX/IZke2utoNOBBLVmeMbSSIIKeb4N3+pzp3Qn69eoVyWGaKKjo nbo3zF868AdGw0AS8sK1c+d74S6bRz/OGHSsoAR9QGOA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set9HGs0Rl0NpQR+0pXAqvQo4lgs4oawkPOgvjMvg68cYuRtwK+9sN5AD5ehqXhD+cKJ5zRyMgjtCQBEkKZua8VA=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:f807:0:b0:5a9:d579:6902 with SMTP id d7-20020a62f807000000b005a9d5796902mr8205291pfh.0.1678312167511; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 13:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:49:26 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZAjsrzhY6o2Fv85s@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <ZAjV1SNf59DKMQY6@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAMMESswTGAqc=M7_q9Khad1uW8dv8yB=VjUxcVpY3mj+NKeNxA@mail.gmail.com> <ZAjsrzhY6o2Fv85s@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 13:49:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESsy9HPriACfX1+E+ka5QXRVKoiCY8ZeszoB66j9RrK6WYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: pim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/aNA_pbj_GaR7QuwaeCi842_Curc>
Subject: Re: [pim] Stig/*: draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis problem / suggestion
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 21:49:30 -0000

On March 8, 2023 at 3:14:42 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 11:46:30AM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > On March 8, 2023 at 1:37:26 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >
> > The question about the actual bit position came up for
> > null-register-packing during IESG Evaluation. As I explained then,
> > the indication in the draft is just a placeholder.
>
> I am not aware that that this "placeholder" concept is specified
> anywhere. Nor is that term or explanation used in either our drafts.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

This is not a placeholder for the value in the registry.  The process
still needs to happen to secure the allocation.

It is just a placeholder in the figure.  For this case, the allocation
pattern is clear starting with FB 7, so it is a pretty good guess that
IANA will allocate the next value.  Also, where it makes sense, IANA
is open to recommendations.

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email