Hi Samuel, On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 1:28 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dhruv, > > > > I support change itself. > > > > One comment for note/question in the draft: > > Question to the WG: The current document updates all > > the registries. Should we keep "Standards Action" for > > some of them such as flag fields with limited bits? > > > > I’m personally not worried about that. We should be able to use same > approach as used for LSP object flags. > > > > One exception, which I can think of are fixed size objects, which may not > be allowing TLVs currently (I’m not sure if there is any specific example > in the list of registries). Do we have any specific plan for those? > > > I did a quick manual check. We mostly dont have this problem with one exception of flag fields in sub-objects. Things to note - - there are already some subobjects flag field that are IETF review - some of these have reserved fields that can be easily used - we could extend by creating a new sub-object type if needed Thanks! Dhruv > Thanks, > > Samuel > > > > *From:* Aijun Wang <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 25, 2024 10:17 AM > *To:* 'Dhruv Dhody' <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* [Pce] 答复: New draft to update IANA registration policy > > > > Hi, Dhruv: > > > > Thanks for your quick draft. I think IETF review is enough because the > required RFCs needs to be passed all the same stages > > Although there maybe some different criteria, the related RFCs can assure > the interoperability of protocol from different vendors. > > > > The document is written clearly. If there is no objection, we can move it > faster to be published. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > > *发件人**:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *代表 *Dhruv Dhody > *发送时间:* 2024年7月23日 5:19 > *收件人:* [email protected] > *主题:* [Pce] New draft to update IANA registration policy > > > > Hi, > > > > I have written a small draft to update the registration policy for all > "standards action" to "IETF review" for PCEP registry. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iana-update/ > > > > The approach that the draft currently takes is to make a blanket change to > IETF-review for all "standards action" registry to allow experimental track > documents to request allocation. There are some registries where the space > is tight but IMHO IETF-review is fine -- our WG and LC process should be > enough to handle the case of less bits which ideally require creating a new > field/registry as we did in the past for LSP object flags! > > > > Thoughts? > > > > It might be a good idea to move this quickly as John suggested in his AD > review of Native-IP draft [1]. > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/xBn2_9E9vy6h5AnYEMMf3I9vbqM/ >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
