Hi, Replying to myself and keeping the same IANA tracking number. > > IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: > > > > IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04. Authors should review > > the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and > > respond to any questions as soon as possible. > > > > IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: > > > > IANA has a question about the IANA Considerations section of this document. > > > > Previously, an early assignment has been made to support this draft. The > > original request for an assignment is below: > > > >> <begin request=""> > >> Contact Name: > >> Thomas Morin > >> > >> Contact Email: > >> [email protected] > >> > >> Type of Assignment: > >> Assignement of a BGP parameter in a FCFS registry. > >> > >> Registry: > >> BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types > >> > >> See: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters > >> > >> Description: > >> Needed for draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system, to allow the use of an > >> MPLS-over-UDP encapsulation as specified in draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp . > >> > >> No value has been proposed yet, next available value 13 would be fine. > >> > >> Additional Info: > >> draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system > >> </end> > > > > IANA Question --> The IANA Considerations section said "This document has > > no IANA actions." and, as a result, the assignment made through the request > > above would not be made permanent. Is this the author's intent? If not, could > > the draft be revised to indicate that the assignment made based on the request > > above be changed from an initial assignment to a permanent assignment. How do you mean? The registry is FCFS for which *any* document is sufficient. The assignment has been made and is as permanent as any FCFS assignment ever is. > > Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early > > allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, > > please see RFC 7120. Yes, but this is a FCFS registry to which 7120 does not apply, and nor does "reservation of values". With FCFS the value is assigned when requested and that's it. Now, it is a different question whether this document should ask for the registry to be updated to point to the consequent RFC instead of the I-D. I think that might be valuable. So the IANA section should read... IANA has previously made an allocation from the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" registry that reads: Value | Name | Reference --------+---------------------------+------------------------------- 13 | MPLS in UDP Encapsulation | [draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system] IANA is requested to change the reference to point to the RFC number of this document when it is published. Cheers, Adrian
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
