Yes, there is. And Early assignment is not an unusual request. See RFC 7120.
On 8/25/16 10:01 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > I don’t know. It seems that every draft could make similar claims, > and yet having IANA make early assignments all the time wouldn’t be > good. I don’t see why this draft should get a pass. Is there any > documentation detailing criteria for early assignments? > > > > Kent > > > > *From: *Eliot Lear <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 2:36 PM > *To: *Kent Watsen <[email protected]>, Zhoutianran > <[email protected]>, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [OPSAWG] WG consensus call for the IANA early > assignment //RE: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04 > > > > Hi Kent, > > We're doing some open source and would like to make it easier for > those who are coding to have to do a little less REcoding. I doubt > very much we're going to see much change in the content or format the > URL or the option. That's what most of the requests are for. Where I > expect we will see change is in the content of the YANG file. There > we have the option to bump the version # in the URL if we think there > has been any real uptake of earlier versions. > > Fair enough? > > Eliot > > > > On 8/25/16 7:27 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > Why is an early assignment being requested? I think it unusual, > especially for a draft that was just adopted, and no justification > is given for why it’s needed other than “to assist with > interoperable development”... > > > > Kent > > > > *From: *OPSAWG <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Zhoutianran > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:46 AM > *To: *Eliot Lear <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>, Warren > Kumari <[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: *[OPSAWG] WG consensus call for the IANA early > assignment //RE: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Since the authors of the draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-00 asked for the > early assignment for various registries from IANA, I would like to > ask the WG consensus. > > > > There will be 1 week since today. You can express your support or > objection. > > > > If there is no objection, I would like to request from the WG. > > > > The following is a list of IANA considerations copied from the draft. > > > > > > Best, > > Tianran > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > 15. IANA Considerations > > > > 15.1. DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Options > > > > IANA is requested to allocated the DHCPv4 and v6 options as > specified > > in Section 9. > > > > 15.2. PKIX Extensions > > > > The IANA is requested to assign a value for id-pe-mud-uri in > the "SMI > > Security for PKIX Certificate Extension" Registry. Its use is > > specified in Section 10. > > > > 15.3. Well Known URI Suffix > > > > The IANA is requested to register the URL suffix of "mud" as > follows: > > > > o URI Suffix: "mud" o Specification documents: this document o > > Related information: n/a > > > > 15.4. MIME Media-type Registration for MUD files > > > > The following media-type is defined for transfer of MUD file: > > > > o Type name: application > > o Subtype name: mud+json > > o Required parameters: n/a > > o Optional parameters: n/a > > o Encoding considerations: 8bit; application/mud+json values > > are represented as a JSON object; UTF-8 encoding SHOULD be > > employed. > > o Security considerations: See {{secon}} of this document. > > o Interoperability considerations: n/a > > o Published specification: this document > > o Applications that use this media type: MUD controllers as > > specified by this document. > > o Fragment identifier considerations: n/a > > o Additional information: > > > > Magic number(s): n/a > > File extension(s): n/a > > Macintosh file type code(s): n/a > > > > o Person & email address to contact for further information: > > Eliot Lear <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>, Ralph > Droms <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > o Intended usage: COMMON > > o Restrictions on usage: none > > > > o Author: Eliot Lear <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>, > Ralph Droms <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > o Change controller: IESG > > o Provisional registration? (standards tree only): No. > > > > > > 15.5. LLDP IANA TLV Subtype Registry > > > > IANA is requested to create a new registry for IANA Link Layer > > Discovery Protocol (LLDP) TLV subtype values. The recommended > policy > > for this registry is Expert Review. The maximum number of > entries in > > the registry is 256. > > > > IANA is required to populate the initial registry with the value: > > > > LLDP subtype value = 1 > > > > Description = the Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) Uniform > > Resource Locator (URL) > > > > Reference = < this document > > > > > > > > > *From:*Eliot Lear [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 7:04 PM > *To:* Warren Kumari > *Cc:* Zhoutianran; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04 > > > > Hi Warren, Tianran, and all, > > > > On 8/17/16 4:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > > Second, and hopefully not that more of a controversy, I > would like to > request early IANA assignments to assist with interoperable > development. These would be listed in the IANA > considerations section > of the current draft. If we need a WG draft to make this > happen, that's > fine with me, but we should do a quick rev after the > assignments. > > > > I believe that this *can* be accomplished without it being a > WG doc, but it is better / cleaner / easier if we make it a WG > doc and then ask for early assistant. We are fine with lots of > revisions / it being submitted and then quickly revised. > > > Just following up on this point: we'd like to request early > assignment from IANA for the various registries. Does that go > through the chairs or the authors at this point? > > Thanks, > > Eliot > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
