Re: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 05 July 2016 20:17 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFOVXuiM=Dt5+HgqF6UaTSjM7KucpYnzdETnV8ft5C8zg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 22:10:31 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1C9B8107-7FA4-458B-AFAF-F8C86741D598@kuehlewind.net>
References: <20160704133205.2547.49641.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAF4+nEFOVXuiM=Dt5+HgqF6UaTSjM7KucpYnzdETnV8ft5C8zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/4YdOpgI69Paj9oeNkwQBdyRxApQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel@ietf.org, "trill-chairs@ietf.org" <trill-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "shares@ndzh.com" <shares@ndzh.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Donald,

I guess it’s up to the wg to decide if a registry is needed or not. I was just wondering why it was decided to not have one and wanted to double-check that this is the right thing to do. I’m fine with that.

I would however, recommend to add a sentence saying that a document that would want to use any additional value would also need to set up a registry. And further, while table 4.1 says "Available for assignment by IETF Review“, table 3.1 doesn’t; i would recommend to add this there as well.

Mirja



> Am 04.07.2016 um 20:14 schrieb Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
> Thanks for your comment. See below.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: No Objection
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> One question: Why are there no IANA registries for tables 3.1 and 4.1?
> 
> I believe that the first time a code point is specified, it is a
> judgement call whether or not to create an IANA registry. If not, then
> obviously the first subsequent document that defines additional values
> needs to set up a registry. But if it doesn't appear that there are
> likely to be any additional values for some time, I don't think it is
> necessary to specify a registry and decide on an allocation policy
> right away. By the time the first additional value needs to be
> assigned the level of demand and the registration policy may be
> clearer.
> 
> However, if the IESG would like, it would certainly be simple enough
> to have these be IANA registries. (If that were done now I would
> suggest an allocation policy of IETF Review due to the limited number
> of values available.)
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
> d3e3e3@gmail.com
>

Re: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dra… Donald Eastlake
Re: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dra… Donald Eastlake
Re: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dra… Susan Hares
Re: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dra… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
Re: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dra… Donald Eastlake
[trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind