Hi Bert,
On 8/29/16 1:58 PM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: > 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. > All but one of them are simply a way to emit the URL. Unless we really think the URL is going to change, and there isn't that much there to change, there's not much risk. I don't think it's a big deal to wait on the media type, and I could envision some changes to the model. In fact I have one proposal I'm pondering. Eliot > 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 >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
