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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On March 8, 2023 at 1:37:26 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:


Toerless:

Hi!


> Sorry, but this whole flag bit / rfc8736 stuff is still IMHO underspecified.
>
> The main issue is that neither assert-packing nor register packing draft
> should indicate flag bits actual bit positions in pictures without prior IANA
> early allocation.

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.

Yes, you can also simply say TBD and not indicate a specific bit in
the figures if that's what you prefer.  Putting this type of detail in
a document is unnecessary.



> But of course that is yet more process. Do you want that process ? Then it
> should be written into rfc8736bis. Sure, its well known, but given how we have
> two drafts concurrently that don't do this early allocation, we don't seem to
> want to follow the rules we know (but like to avoid).

No additional process is needed.  The early allocation process is
already defined in rfc7120.



> Alternatively, the drafts can just write the to-be-assigned-flag names and
> then hmm... at which point in time would one be able to finalize nicely
> looking pictures where the position of a new flag bit is shown in picture ? I
> guess final IANA allocation only happens after IESG approval of a draft,
> right?
>
> So ultimately, we would likely want drafts to be written for picturs NOT to
> show the (not yet IANA allocated) new flag bit field positions, but ten fix
> that during RFC-editor run ??
>
> IN any case, IMHO, the more is written in this draft text to make this clear,
> IMHO the better.

See above.

Thanks!

Alvaro.