Re: [Softwires] [Int-area] AD sponsoring draft-thaler-iftype-reg-02

tom petch <> Fri, 14 June 2019 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B671205D4; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.248
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RATWARE_MS_HASH=2.148, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iipsQEcM10dc; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4CB31205D2; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=gZNuJkIRG/kCDStcfGsStHNwg0ftbG7ZbaYFePPkpaI=; b=VPbOfYueA3jmjPaTsZa32i9INArgVwm5y5mRor7nVd4hAes2HdYyRXCd2VvO6oDdp7CdGPxW6ttqVCXpx5/3S4u7w//7RDb1h8yJTMQp6WZG7K47LalV6h/p205LZBTAScn8ap+0zQ5OpJP410m7pYlUQQ7JDADWOZ5XqvL+hcA=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2008.5; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:28:15 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::e06b:a40d:a4a3:fd78]) by ([fe80::e06b:a40d:a4a3:fd78%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.010; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:28:14 +0000
From: tom petch <>
To: Suresh Krishnan <>, int-area <>, 6man <>, dhcwg <>, V6 Ops List <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] AD sponsoring draft-thaler-iftype-reg-02
Thread-Index: AQHVIs4qTBv2QWTgtEuQvGI24hA49A==
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:28:14 +0000
Message-ID: <019801d522ce$34bff3a0$>
References: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-clientproxiedby: LNXP265CA0030.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:5c::18) To (2603:10a6:102:e::24)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 00a4a854-6312-483a-a710-08d6f0e54c4c
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:PR1PR07MB4874;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: PR1PR07MB4874:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0068C7E410
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(136003)(396003)(366004)(189003)(45074003)(54094003)(43544003)(51444003)(13464003)(199004)(53754006)(44716002)(66066001)(81816011)(71200400001)(316002)(62236002)(6246003)(71190400001)(386003)(81686011)(84392002)(81156014)(81166006)(76176011)(53936002)(14454004)(6506007)(7736002)(64756008)(50226002)(8676002)(5660300002)(305945005)(66946007)(102836004)(26005)(186003)(966005)(2906002)(8936002)(66556008)(99286004)(2501003)(4720700003)(66476007)(86362001)(66446008)(256004)(2201001)(52116002)(68736007)(25786009)(6486002)(6512007)(9686003)(6306002)(478600001)(6436002)(44736005)(110136005)(3846002)(486006)(446003)(73956011)(14496001)(476003)(229853002)(6116002)(61296003)(1556002)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:PR1PR07MB4874;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Wm8OkUn3/Ns/FAJYFl2JCdfzPMS+GYhh5KgmpwmN+Rrsioz1NHrw45TgYq/s8vmNvg7LRfqaNcPpW+Hsq1JXWz2WMMjEp1G9vayYIVtuyocH2SNeaKSgOOPiNgU9fBhjdkwANb3kVyRWq6B229xet900OV4bxtcLKTzNtAaC7hUcOv7DNOONB4WPafnQAiXxPkWII2zTWDr09I4fUqRdvWaKluqUPIfURcNlWDNdTjd1PI0gwDwqy6q1UxnkIxF15yzurjkKIpgEHsNP+KqUuICKRcLstjn7CzdzpoRAZKdNNnhrWzlSFq5sO+lwOzI4C7IIhrQ2qzMpa5O1GhtT2Y1t4Y9gsBRZH0ZfYZPhQvEgIgnPYk44QtizwF7PFaPZzdJrJAJAyI7A6yVX1oO2XjLQMMpvbUq6onj2aspeTn8=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 00a4a854-6312-483a-a710-08d6f0e54c4c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Jun 2019 16:28:14.8696 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PR1PR07MB4874
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Int-area] AD sponsoring draft-thaler-iftype-reg-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:28:22 -0000


The concern I have is that it muddies the waters further on the standing
of tunnels so while I think that its proposals for ifType per se are
fine, I would like it to make explicit that tunnels are out-of-scope at
this time.

I have been trying to reconcile the workings of softwire, in creating a
tunnel YANG module, with the existing IANA structure and failing.  I
believe that is because the current status of tunnels is unclear.  Thus
the softwire I-D refers to a registry that does not exist (as such)
although the URL that the softwire I-D does. I think the timing
unfortunate in that IMHO the softwires I-D will get pressed ahead before
this work can complete, so quite what this I-D then says about tunnels
will be coloured by what then exists for tunnels.

So this I-D should make clear what a tunnel is, when it is not an
interface, but otherwise declaring tunnels out-of-scope, for a future
I-D to do a comparable job for tunnels, setting up a tunnel registry
from which MIB modules, YANG modules and anything else can be derived
(as long as the relevant data is supplied - SMI needs integers, YANG
does not, which I-Ds do not always recognise although the Designated
Experts can take care of that).

Finally, when I first encountered this I-D I asked on NETCONF and NETMOD
WG lists if anyone knew of it, where it was being worked on and got no
reply - which surprised me.  I note that you have not copied them
although they were involved in making the interface type registry what
it currently is when creating the YANG module for interface types.  I
wonder if other WG have an interest, CCAMP or TEAS perhaps.  I agree
that int-area is the WG best equipped to work on it and that it needs
working on.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Suresh Krishnan" <>
To: "int-area" <>rg>; "6man" <>rg>; "dhcwg"
<>rg>; "V6 Ops List" <>rg>; <>rg>;
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 7:22 PM

Hi all,
  I would like to AD sponsor the following draft that provides
guidelines for definition of new interface types in the IANA IfType

If you have any concerns either with the contents of the draft, or about
me AD sponsoring it please let me know before 2019/06/26.


NOTE: I have CCed: all the working groups that I thought could be
interested in this work. If you think I have missed out some WG(s)
please let
me know.


> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list