Hi Tom, IANA has made the update to -
Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 8:32 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 5:03 AM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Where it says >> 'This updates >> | Wavelength | [RFC8780] | | >> | Restriction | | | >> | Constraint TLV | | | >> | Action Values ' >> Is this the >> "Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values" subregistry ] >> of RFC8780? >> >> > In the IANA page it is called "Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV > Action Values" > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#wavelength-restriction-constraint-tlv-action-values > > RFC 8780 uses "Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values" > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8780.html#section-8.5 > > With a little digging I found that the keyword "Constraint" was dropped > from the TLV name during AUTH48 but the iana was not updated. Let me take > action on fixing this. Thanks for spotting it! > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > >> Tom Petch >> ________________________________________ >> From: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> >> Sent: 25 July 2024 09:16 >> >> 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]] >> 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]
