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)

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

No problem at all, we can start also from 1000, i just wanted to understand why. I understand why 10 but I still don't understand why those two registries...but I can live with that. 

Daniele  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: martedì 9 gennaio 2018 18:30
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; 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]>
> 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)
> 
> 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
> >