Hi Goeff, I have one comment about this part of your review:
> It seems anomalous to me that a request to set up an IANA Registry for an > Experimental Protocol (RFC6830 is Experimental) is itself proposed to be a > Standards Track document. FWIW, I'm aware of an IANA registry for an experimental protocol that you can check here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml#mptcp-option-subtypes Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : lisp [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Geoff Huston > Envoyé : lundi 28 novembre 2016 04:04 > À : Zhangxian (Xian); [email protected] > Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Jon Hudson > Objet : [lisp] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-03.txt > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. > > The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related > drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes > on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to > the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, > please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last > Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through > discussion or by updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-03.txt > Reviewer: Geoff Huston Review > Date: 28 November 2016 > IETF LC End Date: not called > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary: > > I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the > Routing ADs discuss these issues further with the authors and the IANA. > > Comments: > > Draft quality and readability. > > The third paragraph of the Introduction is unclear. Given that LISP itself > is an experimental specification it is hard to understand the distinction > being made between the "experimentation purposes" and some other > undescribed purpose which this reviewer can only conclude is also an > experimentation purpose. I suggest re-thinking the intent of this > paragraph and expressing it in simpler terms. > > In section 2, the use of the normative "MUST" seems to be inappropriate, > particularly when a non-normative "must" ius used in section 4 in an > identical context. > > Major Issues: > > It seems anomalous to me that a request to set up an IANA Registry for an > Experimental Protocol (RFC6830 is Experimental) is itself proposed to be a > Standards Track document. > > Furthermore, the document states that additional values be assigned via a > Standards Action. Again, it appears anomalous to me that a specification > of a parameter value of an experimental protocol be described by a > Standards Track action. > > If RFC6830 is revised and is re-published as a Standards Track > specification then these points are of course not relevant, but until such > a publication takes place, specifying an IANA parameter registry as a > Standards Track action for an experimental protocol seems to me to be > anomalous and should not proceed unless the IESG specifically agrees with > this approach. Alternatively RFC5226 could be further revised to > explicitly describe the guidelines as they relate to Experimental > Specifications (as distinct from experimental allocations within Standards > Track specifications), as this area appears to be unclear from my reading > of RFC5226. > > However it is not for me to resolve this issue, nor is it up to the draft > authors, or the LISP working group, as far as I can tell. It is up to the > IESG and > IANA to clarify this situation and allow IANA to be given clear directions > as to how to maintain parameter registries for experimental specifications > while they remain experiments. > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
