You appear to have misunderstood me - its _not_ that this draft seeks to create an IANA registry for an experimental specification that I found to be anomalous. What I found anomalous was that the document proposing such an action was itself proposed to be a Standards Track document.
Clear now? thanks, Geoff > On 29 Nov. 2016, at 12:43 am, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
