On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Greg Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For the record, there is no SR Registry. There is only an IGP Algo Type >> Registry as defined in draft-ietf-ospr-segment-routing-extensions-24 >> section 8.5 >> > > So is that a good idea, having multiple drafts in flight with fields > expecting to have magic couplings to each other while leaving e'thing > "unspecified" to "publish RFCs" while we "decide things later"? > That was a pivot, but still; there is no reference, there is no coupling. Tangental: draft-ietf-ospr-segment-routing-extensions-24 has been around for a while, and the IGP Algo registry will be tied to this draft and it's fate. If anyone is expecting to use this registry outside of the scope of this draft, it would be in their best interest to pull the registry description out into a separate draft. >> >> a) No IGP or SR working group has any charter to mandate any of the >>> BIER technology so as well-meant the suggestion seems to be, it has no >>> standing in IETF working procedures as far as I can see unless according >>> charters are extended by ADs. Unless I'm missing something here. >>> >> >> If a WG points to a registry of any kind, a draft is all that is needed >> to justify an new entry in the registry. >> > > Forthcoming today as I said ... For all practical purposes having a > _single value_ in a field that can accommodate more in the future can > mandate a registry and we already have 0 BTW. And it looks we will/may have > more so I can't follow the apparent logic here that we don't need a > registry because "we don't have values today" but so we publish an RFC > without registry which implies we don't need a registry later in case we > have values? > > >> >>> b) More as a question: Can we even publish an RFC now >>> (experimental) pointing to an SR draft as normative? And if, how do we move >>> it to intended standards track unless SR draft is a standards RFC? >>> >> >> Nobody is asking to reference it now. The current issue on the table to >> to leave it undefined with only default value, so let's stick with the >> current issue. >> > > I leave it to the judgement of IESG and AD then whether they progress > things to RFCs (intended for standards track) with undefined fields for > which the "interpretations" will come later. The issue was here 6 months > ago and was muscled, the issue is obviously now on an open consensus > building list. It will not magically go away. I still see a registry as a > long-time proven way to anchor multiple ideas coming into a technology > safely and fail to understand how we have things that will be "aligned" but > are not "depending to each other" while "documentations" are not > "registries" from the continuation of your email, Greg ... And I lived > through enough codepoint squatting wars and WG charters stepping onto each > others feet to not having the desire to have one more on my hands, hence I > welcome the thread ... > Which was the agreement a few months ago. Let the IESG decide. Thanks, Greg > > --- tony > > >
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
