(changing the subject to match the topic)
Hi Robert
Thanks for this. I believe that a few fixes are needed to the IANA sections of
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce and draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp to clarify the
instructions that we are giving to IANA. Please could you make these fixes so
that I can kick off the allocation request? In case you have not much time to
work on these documents, don't worry - the changes are small (but important)
and in each case I have proposed what I believe to be the correct text below.
If you have any concerns, please let me know.
Thanks
Jon
== draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce ==
Section 8.1
Please replace the text before the table with the following:
IANA is requested to allocate new bits in the OSPF Parameters "PCE
Capability Flags" registry, as follows.
Section 8.2
Please replace the text before the table with the following:
IANA is requested to allocate new message types within the "PCEP
Messages" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows.
Section 8.3
Please replace the text before the table with the following:
IANA is requested to allocate new object-class values and object types
within the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows.
The format of the table in this section needs to be cleaned up. Copy the
format from any RFC that defines a new PCEP object type.
Section 8.5
Please replace the text before the table with the following:
IANA is requested to allocate new Error Types and Error Values within
the " PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP
Numbers registry, as follows.
Section 8.6
Please replace the text before the table with the following:
IANA is requested to allocate new Notification Types and Notification
Values within the "Notification Object" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers
registry, as follows.
Section 8.7
Please replace the text before the table with the following:
IANA is requested to allocate new TLV Type Indicator values within the
" PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as
follows.
Section 8.9
Please update the text to explain the procedure for assigning new values, and
the qualities to track for each entry in the registry. I think you need to add
the following sentences to the end of the text before the table.
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each
value should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Value
o Description
o Defining RFC
The following values are defined in this document:
== draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp ==
Section 8.1
Please replace the text before the table with the following:
IANA is requested to allocate a new message type within the "PCEP
Messages" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows.
Section 8.2
Please replace the text before the table with the following
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] defines the LSP Object and requests that
IANA creates a registry to manage the value of the LSP Object's Flag field.
IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in the LSP Object Flag Field registry,
as follows.
Section 8.3
Since [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] does not create a registry for the SRP object
flags field, this document must do it instead. Please replace the text in this
section with the following.
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "SRP Object
Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the SRP
object. New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226].
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Description
o Defining RFC
The following values are defined in this document:
Bit Description Reference
31 LSP-Remove This document
Section 8.4
Please replace the text before the table with the following
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] defines the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV and
requests that IANA creates a registry to manage the value of the
STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV's Flag field. IANA is requested to allocate a new
bit in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field registry, as follows.
Section 8.5
Please replace the text before the table with the following
IANA is requested to allocate new error types and error values within
the " PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP
Numbers registry, as follows.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Varga [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 27 June 2016 13:11
To: Jonathan Hardwick <[email protected]>
Cc: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 available
On 02/02/2016 04:21 PM, Jonathan Hardwick wrote:
> Hi Robert
Hello Jon.
sorry for the delay, PCE work has been on the back burner :-(
> (I'm answering as WG chair.)
>
>
>
> Sorry for the slow reply. I would expect the progress of
> draft-ietf-pce-pceps through to RFC to be reasonably fast, so I'm not
> sure early code point allocation should be needed. The main risk
> would be a conflict with the stateful PCE drafts, should the new
> message in the PCEPS draft be allocated a clashing code point with the
> values that the stateful drafts have "recommended" for their messages.
I agree.
> I think it is possible that PCEPS will leap-frog stateful PCE on the
> way to RFC, so I think the best way to proceed is to obtain an early
> allocation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce and
> draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp. To do this we would only require
> help from the stateful draft authors (e.g. you) to answer any
> questions that IANA has about your text (which would happen sooner or
> later anyway :-). Would you like us to start an early allocation for these
> drafts?
I think this is a fair assessment. I can answer any questions and an early
allocation would be an excellent way of ensuring we do not get clashes.
Thanks,
Robert
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
