Re: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 12 October 2017 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E0513450A; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 ihy1QcM-qt3I; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 039A6134504; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2296; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1507815828; x=1509025428; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=V0o8jMZt5v7mcpW2vsrSN253I6vQ7SxfrFp1BrhKgTY=; b=VGvAGFJEMNNlWzpVyXB+nPjhgSnOYs9Vi32f/4yhn1w67B1Fc6JE6y7U E1/KDe+q0Zsb2R+h6NjbKNeZHUGE8pPnf/edH2jQn0LSQq1TLA8/sVWFM Ec92V+TPU2xepmuv/dH4028jxeetFWbaoBjduIjM4Fx77QrPVqHFjlk3q Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AQAgDBcN9Z/5xdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg11kbicHg3OZTZglDoIECiOFGAIahCBAFwECAQEBAQEBAWsohR4?= =?us-ascii?q?GIxFFEAIBCBoCJgICAjAVEAIEAQ0Fih4QqhuCJ4s3AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBGAWBDoIfggeDO4MqhFIBEgEfgxOCYQWKFocwj34Ch1yNDIIUhXSLCJU?= =?us-ascii?q?+AhEZAYE4ASECNIEDC3gVhhiBTnYBiSOBJIERAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,366,1503360000"; d="scan'208";a="296578521"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Oct 2017 13:43:47 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9CDhiAt004839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:43:46 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:43:43 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:43:43 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTQ1zkKmf8IYv0gU6kjkWNeq3duqLgOWcA
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:43:43 +0000
Message-ID: <D604E8B5.CE63A%acee@cisco.com>
References: <150781443454.16864.9884353629673389115.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <150781443454.16864.9884353629673389115.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.195]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <BFC965E1E255B446A855A7AC201D20F3@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/p3gPxzNQ4uc-x0Q8hLd3DmgcsUg>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:43:51 -0000

Hi Alissa, 

On 10/12/17, 9:20 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>; wrote:

>Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: No Objection
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This is a small thing, but in general I think it would be preferable not
>to
>embed the name "iana" in identifiers that can be consumed
>programmatically (the
>namespace URN and module name). What distinguishes the iana-routing-types
>module seems to be that the types define values for address family
>identifiers,
>not the fact that the registries containing those identifiers happen to be
>administered by IANA. If somebody else administered those registries it
>would
>have no effect on the contents of the module.

It is only the name of the module and not the type identifiers themselves.
This precedence of a separate iana-xxx module was set in RFC 7224 and was
specifically requested during draft development (RTG WG and NETMOD WG). I
don’t think now is the right time to change it.

Thanks,
Acee 
>
>