Hi John/Lars, I hope this topic can be discussed in the upcoming telechat to conclude on the option to be adopted.
To make it easier, let me provide a pointer to the text for each inline below. I am not sure that I understand option 3 very well. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 9:42 PM John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > (To keep everyone in the loop since you weren’t all on the cc of the IANA > review email.) > > Amanda Baber at IANA pointed out that the added paragraph is a problem for > IANA since it’s too imprecise for IANA to carry out. The options come down > to: > > 1. Revisit the WG decision, and add a field to the registry for the “Y/N” > annotations that relate to this spec. KT> This was https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-05#section-3 IANA is requested to introduce a column "Applicability to L2 Bundle Member TLV" in the registry tables for the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" registry with the initial updates (Y/N) against allocations as indicated in Figure 2. Similarly, IANA is requested to introduce a column "Applicability to L2 Bundle Member TLV" in the registry tables for the "OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs" registry with the initial updates (Y/N/X) against allocations as indicated in Figure 3. Further allocations from these two registries are expected to indicate the applicability of the introduced sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member TLV that would get updated in these registries. > > 2. Change the policy to something like "IETF Review (Additional Expert > Review Required) or IESG Approval" and include advice to the experts in the > document. (Thanks to Amanda for this suggestion.) KT> This is a "quick" tweak on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-08#section-4 as follows: This document updates the guidance to IANA for further allocations from the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" and the "OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs" registries to "IETF Review (Additional Expert Review Required)" [RFC8126] and requests the addition of this document as a reference to those registries. It requires that the designated expert appointed by IESG verify that any document requesting allocation of code point from these two registries needs to specify the applicability of the introduced sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member TLV in a manner similar to Figure 2 and Figure 3 that cover existing allocations up to the point of publication of this document. > > 3. Move the “it requires” text out of the IANA considerations and into a > more appropriate section, and don’t try to put a gatekeeper into the > registry (yet). > KT> I am not sure what this option involves. Putting this document as a reference but no IANA actions or gatekeeper seems odd to me. Isn't this option - "do nothing" - which is the state in which this draft came out of the WG and AD review? What came out of the WG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-04#section-3 also same as at the end of John's AD review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06#section-3 Thanks, Ketan > > I think either option 1 or option 2 would be fine insofar as resolving > Lars (et al)’s concern. Option 3 would amount to returning to the previous > plan of record, which was to ship the spec without a registry gatekeeper > but ask the WG to produce a registry reorg that does so in a more > comprehensive way. > > Of these plans, I’m least enthusiastic about option 2 since it would > require us to appoint and instruct an expert reviewer, for what I hope will > be a short-lived function. That implies — to me — that option 1 is the > least bad way of breaking the deadlock. > > Until we resolve this the draft will be stuck in “IANA NOT OK”. > > —John > > > Hi Lars, > > > > Thanks for your confirmation. > > > > Acee/John, I haven't received any response (objection or support) from > the WG on this change. I believe this may be a good interim step until the > WG considers any IANA registry reorganization. Can you please share your > views as shepherd and AD respectively? > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 6:31 PM Lars Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2022-9-30, at 16:37, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In brief, the proposal was to introduce the following text in the IANA > considerations: > > > > > > <NEW> > > > This document updates the guidance to IANA for further allocations > > > from the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" [1] and the > > > "OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs" [2] registries and requests the > addition > > > of this document as a reference to those registries. It requires > > > that any document requesting allocation of code point from these > > > two registries need to indicate the applicability of the introduced > > > sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member TLV in that document. > > > > something along those lines would work for me. > > > > Thanks, > > Lars > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
