Re: [sfc] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

Hello Murray

Le 2021-12-02 à 7:34, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker a écrit :
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: Discuss
> 
> 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding the first thing you've got in Section 7.  You
> have one table of assignments to make, but you're referencing two distinct
> sub-registries under "Network Service Header (NSH) Parameters", namely "NSH MD
> Class" and "NSH IETF-Assigned Optional Variable-Length Metadata Types".  There
> doesn't appear to be a "metadata context type registry".  I think this change
> clarifies what you mean, but please tell me if I'm wrong:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>     IANA is requested to assign the following types from the "NSH IETF-
>     Assigned Optional Variable-Length Metadata Types" (0x0000 IETF Base
>     NSH MD Class) registry available at [IANA-NSH-MD2]:
> 
>     This document defines the following new values (Table 1) in the
>     Network Service Header (NSH) metadata context Type registry:
> 
> NEW:
> 
>     IANA is requested to assign the following types (Table 1) from the IETF
>     Review range in the "NSH MD Class" sub-registry of the "Network Service
>     Header (NSH) Parameters" registry:

Thanks for catching this. This is indeed a bit confusing but the intent 
of the draft doesn't match with your suggestion:

The new metadata defined by this document shall be registered in "NSH 
IETF-Assigned Optional Variable-Length Metadata Types".
So each object will have its own type but all will be of the same MD 
Class (0x0000, which is the only value registered by 8300, and which is 
in the "NSH MD Class" registry).

So I think the new text should simply be:

    IANA is requested to assign the following types from the "NSH IETF-
    Assigned Optional Variable-Length Metadata Types" registry available
    at [IANA-NSH-MD2]:

-m


> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for a well done shepherd writeup.
> 
> I support Ben's DISCUSS position, particularly the first point.
> 
> A suggestion on organization: I think what you have as the top of Section 7
> should be a subsection (e.g., 7.1), and then the other subsections moved down.
> It doesn't make sense to me to have these registrations be dominant over the
> others; they're all just a set of IANA actions.
> 
> I have the same comment as Francesca about Section 4.1.
> 
> 
> 
>