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)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

What's the problem with starting with 10 so it's easy to note there 
assignment for the new definition starts?  The number space is 
sufficiently large...

Lou


On 1/9/2018 12:18 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>
> Hi Lou,
>
> i’m missing the “collision” with the other registries you’re 
> mentioning, which I guess are:
>
> - Types for sub-TLVs of Optical Node Property (Value 6): where RFC7688 
> defines values from 1 to 5
>
> - Types for sub-TLVs of OTN-TDM SCSI (Switching Capability Specific 
> Information): where RFC7138 defines values 1 and 2
>
> The former is used in a totally different TLV (optical node property), 
> while the latter in association with Switching type 110.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Daniele
>
> *From:*Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* martedì 9 gennaio 2018 17:53
> *To:* Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo 
> <[e-mail]>; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A 
> (ATTLABS) <[e-mail]>; Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>; Shah, 
> Himanshu <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]; Yemin (Amy) 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Alvaro Retana 
> <[e-mail]>; Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>; Daniele 
> Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* 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,
>
>     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] <mailto:[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 list
>
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>