So, do you want early assignments for all the registries that
are listed under your IANA considerations?
There are quite a few as far as I can tell.
Bert
On 25/08/16 20:36, Eliot Lear wrote:
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]> on behalf of Zhoutianran
<[email protected]>
*Date: *Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:46 AM
*To: *Eliot Lear <[email protected]>, Warren Kumari <[email protected]>
*Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[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]>, Ralph Droms <[email protected]>
o Intended usage: COMMON
o Restrictions on usage: none
o Author: Eliot Lear <[email protected]>, Ralph Droms <[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]; [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
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
