Speaking as a WG member: Hi Alvaro, Alia,
If we are going to change this, I would propose we change the allocation policy from “Standards Action” to “IETF Review” as opposed to splitting the range. Thanks, Acee From: Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:36 PM To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aret...@cisco.com<mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970...@ietf.org>>, "ospf-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-cha...@ietf.org>" <ospf-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-cha...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis Alvaro, Is there a reason not to split up the Unassigned range into Standards Action and RFC Required? Also, are you picking RFC Required over IETF Review [RFC5226]? The former would open up for Independent Stream RFCs while the latter would not. Can we get opinions from the WG? I am expecting to do my AD review of this draft and get it moving - hopefully for the Oct 15 telechat - assuming the document is in the fine shape that I expect from the OSPF WG. Regards, Alia On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aret...@cisco.com<mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: [WG Participant Hat On] Hi! I know that the WG has asked for publication of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis, but I would like to see a change in the IANA Considerations Section before moving forward. Sorry for being so late.. The ID (and rfc4970) define a registry for OSPF RI TLVs. Currently, the only way to get a value assigned is through Standards Action (which requires a Standards Track RFC). There is a range reserved for Experimentation — I understand why these values are not to be assigned (rfc3692). However, there is work that could that could benefit from a less strict assignment policy, where the code may be in general deployment, and even enabled by default in products — not what rfc3692 had in mind. In this case I am specifically referring to the TTZ work — now that it is on the Experimental track, it doesn’t meet the requirement for Standards Action and given the size of potential deployments I don’t think it’s practical to just pick a value off the range reserved for Experimentation. I am sure that, if not right now, other work will also benefit from a less strict policy. Proposal: redefine the Reserved space so that half of it remains Reserved (the top half) while the other half uses a different assignment policy. I’m proposing RFC Required (rfc5226) as the assignment policy. The text in 4970bis already talks about a Standards Track RFC being able to change the assignment policy for the Reserved space — as long as we’re doing the bis work, we might as well include this change. Given that the ID is already with the AD, I could make the same comment when the IETF Last Call is issued, but I think we may need WG consensus on changing the registry — so it might be easier to take care of it now. Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
