PCE working group, draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis is fixing a clash between an IANA allocation for RFC 7150 and an unallocated code point documented in a working group Internet-Draft that had been picked up and used by multiple implementations.
Another clash has just been pointed out to me between RFC 7150 and draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions. The specifying of unallocated values in PCE I-Ds has got to stop before significant clashes happen in the field. Cease! Desist! It is not necessary, and there is a simple solution to get code points if you need them. Steps to be followed: 1. Identify all I-Ds that state or recommend values for code points (see below). 2. Decide whether the values shown are needed to support existing implementations. 2a. If so, make an immediate request to the WG chairs for early allocation of the code points using the procedures of RFC 7120. 2b. If not, make an immediate revision of the I-D removing the specific code point values. 3. In the future, when implementations of an I-D become advanced enough to be close shipping or starting interop testing, use RFC 7120 to get code points allocated. 4. Do not adopt any I-D as a working group draft if it specifies code points. Current drafts draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp specifies unallocated values draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls suggests values draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp specifies an unallocated value draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce suggests multiple unallocated values draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations specifies and suggests multiple unallocated values Recently-expired drafts draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions specifies multiple unallocated values draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext recommends multiple unallocated values Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
