Robert - > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 8:14 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [email protected]; > [email protected]; General Area Review Team > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Gen-art LC review draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00 > > > On 7/20/14, 11:04 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > Robert - > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert > Sparks > >> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:27 AM > >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > General > >> Area Review Team > >> Subject: [Isis-wg] Gen-art LC review draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00 > >> > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > >> > >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > >> > >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > >> you may receive. > >> > >> Document: draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00 > >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks > >> Review Date: 20-Jul-2014 > >> IETF LC End Date: 25-Jul-2014 > >> IESG Telechat date: 7-Aug-2014 > >> > >> Summary: Basically ready for publication, but with process nits for the > >> group and the IESG to consider > >> > >> Thanks for assembling such a clearly written document. > >> > >> The shepherd writeup should have discussed _why_ this document is > >> intended for Proposed Standard. > >> There is no protocol definition here, and nothing to progress on the > >> standards ladder. This is, instead, > >> primarily defining process. Why isn't this being progressed as a BCP? > > The document does two things: > > > > 1)It updates some registries for sub-TLVs defined at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv- > codepoints.xhtml > > > > As these changes are modifying the format (not the content) of registries > used by a number of standards track RFCs it needs to be a standards track > document. > I don't believe that follows. A BCP could update these documents as well.
The registries define the codepoints which are sent on the wire by IS-IS implementations. This is absolutely essential for interoperability. I fail to follow your reasoning that a change to such a registry falls into the BCP bucket. That said, I don't really care about the category - my goal in writing this draft is to satisfy the process requirements to get what amount to editorial changes to the registry done. In this matter I am happy to follow the recommendations from IANA/IESG, Gen-ART, etc. So let's not argue - rather please build consensus with your peers in IANA/IESG as well as the ADs and I will happily agree so long as it accomplishes the original goal. Les > > > > 2)It defines procedures for early allocation of codepoints from the above > registry. > > > > While an argument could be made that this portion should be BCP, the fact > that it is combined with #1 requires that the document be Standards track. > > > >> Should this Update any of the RFCs that previously defined these > registries? > > Yes - it updates the following RFCs: 5130, 5311 > The document header (and abstract) should be updated to indicate that. > > > > Les > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Isis-wg mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
