Hi all,
I fully agree with the procedure suggested by Adrian.
@Fatai. I guess all drafts (stable or not), except those that have an
early allocation, will need to have a TBD value. A suggested value is
usually (mis)interpreted as ³this is the specified value, though not
official yet²
Best Regards,
Óscar
El 18/09/14 13:06, "Loa Andersson" <[email protected]> escribió:
>Fatai,
>
>I agree with you - I also don't think this is only for the PCE
>working group but should be applicable to the entire rtg area.
>
>/Loa
>
>On 2014-09-18 10:53, Fatai Zhang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry, I should say (2b) and (4), :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Fatai
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fatai Zhang
>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:32 PM
>> To: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
>>
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> I think the steps you proposed really make sense.
>>
>> I have one comment for clarification on step (2a) and (4), did you mean
>>that it only needs to use "TBD" rather than the suggested values?
>>
>> In addtion, for the new drafts (or non-existing drafts with clash), can
>>I re-order your steps as follows? :-)
>>
>> 1. Do not adopt any I-D as a working group draft if it specifies code
>>points.
>>
>> 2. 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Fatai
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:43 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
>
>--
>
>
>Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
>Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
>Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
