Hello Oscar,
Yes, clearly the codepoint allocation is handled by IANA and we are well
aware of the early allocation procedures. What we are looking for is a
fix for a mistake we made some two years ago and which went undiscovered
until the addition of RFC7150.
As you may be aware, we are talking about touching a registry governed
by "IETF Review" policy, which according to RFC is there to
ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
in an inappropriate or damaging manner.
So before initiating a change to this registry, we are seeking input
from field, specifically on the existence of active deployments of 7150.
Thanks,
Robert
On 07/21/2014 04:01 PM, OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS wrote:
Hi Robert,
The assignment of code-points is handled by IANA (see RFC 2434). To
prevent conflicts, and avoid situations like this, there is a procedure
for Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points (defined in RFC
7120, which obsoletes 4020). Using this procedure, a widely spread pre-RFC
implementation has the guarantee of non-collision of code-points.
I would suggest that to solve the conflict you contact directly IANA,
who would guide you properly.
And to prevent situations like this in the future, I would suggest
following RFC 7120 procedure in other widely implemented pre-RFC
documents.
Best Regards,
Óscar
El 21/07/14 09:41, "Robert Varga" <[email protected]> escribió:
Hello everyone,
as some of you may have noticed, the draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce's
definition of LSP object conflicts with that of RFC7150
(VENDOR-INFORMATION/Vendor-Specific Constraints), as both specify the
object to be 32/1. This is obviously bad, and resolving it requires one
of the specifications to move.
Given that the stateful draft is being shipped by multiple vendors for
quite some time now, this puts us in a tight spot of having to choose
which implementations to break by moving their codepoint allocation.
With that, I would like to as the WG the following three incremental
questions:
Are there any RFC7150 implementations fielded?
If so, are they using the Vendor-Specific Contraints object?
If so, how much breakage would ensue should the object codepoint be moved?
Thanks,
Robert
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
proceda a sua destruição
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
