Hi IANA,
Let me simply state that I agree with Adrian's analysis and suggestion.
-Thomas,
(as shepherd of this draft, and as the one who took the action of
registering the code point)
Tue Dec 09 2014 14:20:26 GMT+0100 (CET), Adrian Farrel:
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
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
