Well, I hate to argue process. đ
But what you folks are saying isnât matching what is recorded in the IS-IS
registries. To provide one example:
16 Application Specific Link Attributes (TEMPORARY - registered
2018-04-27, extension registered 2019-04-01, expires 2020-04-27) y
y y(s) y y y
[draft-ietf-isis-te-app]
There is also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7370#section-4
â6. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the
Expiry and deallocation process defined in [RFC7120] MUST be
followed for the relevant codepoints -- noting that the
Designated Experts perform the role assigned to Working Group
chairs.â
I also donât know why we need to mess with something that has been working
quite well for years nowâŚ
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 12:01 PM
To: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected]>; IANA <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] IANA Early Allocation Request for "Signaling Entropy Label
Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS" -
draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
To summarize, âearlyâ allocation has been done by the IS-IS Designated Experts.
However, these allocations have been permanent as opposed to temporary. If
there were ever a problem with an early allocation, the allocation would need
to be deprecated rather than simply expire.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, August 23, 2019 at 2:56 PM
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, IANA
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] IANA Early Allocation Request for "Signaling Entropy Label
Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS" -
draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
On August 23, 2019 at 2:18:37 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote:
Most IS-IS TLV registries are âExpert Reviewâ and we have been doing early
allocation for many years now.
Are you now saying this has been invalid process for all of these years??
No, not exactly.
What Iâm saying is that the rfc7120 process doesnât apply to registries which
are Expert Review only; specifically, look at §3.
For Expert Review only registries, IANA still has to be in the loop when doing
the allocation, because they are the interface with the DEs. However, unlike
early allocations done through rfc7120, the DE-assigned ones donât expireâŚand
the requirements for Expert Review may be simpler. So, the allocation may be
done âearlyâ, as in before the process is completeâŚwhich is perfectly fine, as
long as there are no explicit instructions in the registry-creating RFC, and
the DE approves.
For example, a registry with an RFC Required policy needs an RFC â obviously!
So the rfc7120 process allows for the early (= before an RFC is published)
assignment. As part of the process, the assignments expire every year and have
to be explicitly renewedâŚ.in case the work is abandoned and never completed,
for example.
OTOH, unless explicitly indicated in the RFC that defined the registry, a DE
may assign a code point at pretty much any time (see §5/rfc8126).
Again, IANA can correct me.
Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
