Re: [Teas] [IANA #992491] Protocol Action: 'OSPF-Traffic Engineering Link Availability Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-13.txt)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,
happy New Year and the best wishes to All!
I don't have concerns regarding to proposed type value but one question and
a two suggestions:

   - the Generalized SCSI (Switching Capability Specific Information) TLVs
   Types registry lists values from 1 through 9 as Unassigned. Are there plans
   to assign them to newer SCSI Types or rather exclude the range from being
   used altogether? If the latter,
   then draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension may be the right placed
   to state that in the IANA Considerations section.
   - There's no Experimental use range in SCSI Type registry. May be useful.
   - Similar to making 0 reserved value in the registry, should 65535 be
   reserved as well?

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greg,
>
>     Our (designated experts) rational was included in the forwarded
> message:
>
> > The short answer is to avoid the sub-tlv values used in RFC7688 (1-5)
> > and 7138 (1-2) and it seemed better to start with 10 then 6.
> Do you have concerns with this approach?  If so what?
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>
>
> On 12/15/2017 4:03 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>
> Dear TEAS Experts, et. al,
> I've refreshed my memory of the RFC 8258 that defined SCSI-TLV and the Generalized
> SCSI (Switching Capability Specific Information) TLV Types registry. The
> current registry has values 1 through 9 as unassigned and without any
> reference. Do you have plans to use these values in the future? And it
> would help me a great deal if you expand on references to allocated sub-TLV
> type values for RFC 7688 and RFC 7138. Do you have concern that the new
> Availability type may be used in the same TLV with them? I don't see that
> as possible scenario but I might be missing something here.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Authors,
>>
>> This is the answer from the designated experts re: the use of value 10
>> instead of value 1:
>>
>> > The short answer is to avoid the sub-tlv values used in RFC7688 (1-5)
>> > and 7138 (1-2) and it seemed better to start with 10 then 6.  Also, if
>> > they want to discuss further, please ask them to send a message to the
>> > TEAS WG list.
>>
>> Can you review this registry action and below confirm that we've
>> completed it correctly? Please see the question below as well.
>>
>> We've added the following entry to the Generalized SCSI (Switching
>> Capability Specific Information) TLV Types registry:
>>
>> Value: 10
>> SCSI-TLV: Availability
>> Switching Type:
>> Reference: [RFC-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-13]
>>
>> QUESTION: RFC 8258 states that "New allocation requests to this registry
>> must indicate the value or values to be used in the Switching Type column."
>> How should we fill in the column for this registration? Please note that
>> this field should be added to the IANA Considerations section.
>>
>> Please see
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters
>>
>> Once we have data for the Switching Type field, if this action is
>> otherwise correct, we'll tell the RFC Editor the actions are complete.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Amanda Baber
>> Lead IANA Services Specialist
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>
>