Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: (with COMMENT)
On 4 May 2016, at 15:48, Eric C Rosen wrote: On 5/3/2016 6:48 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: I am curious why the "Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags" registry needs a standards-action policy. It's pretty obvious why for the main flag registry, due to the small value-space. Are people concerned that the Additional flag will also run out of space? Yes, I think that is an issue. 48 flags may sound like a lot, but the existing 8 flags got used up fairly quickly and suddenly; one draft grabbed four flag bits. So FCFS doesn't really seem like an appropriate policy here. The other possible policies are all subject to politics, but at least Standards Action comes with early allocation. That's a reasonable answer. Thanks! Ben. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: (with COMMENT)
Just in case it helps someone else: Martin clarified to me that early allocation before RFC is possible for Standards Action, according to RFC7120. Thank you Martin. Jorge On 5/5/16, 10:59 AM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" wrote: >Eric, > >For my own understanding and apologies if this is a dumb question, but I read >this in RFC5226: > >"Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track RFCs approved >by the IESG.” > > >What do you mean by "at least Standards Action comes with early allocation”? >This still requires an RFC or... do you mean there will be a way to register >bits earlier than the RFC milestone? > >Thank you. >Jorge > > > >On 5/4/16, 10:48 PM, "BESS on behalf of EXT Eric C Rosen" > wrote: > >>On 5/3/2016 6:48 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> I am curious why the >>> "Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags" registry needs a >>> standards-action policy. It's pretty obvious why for the main flag >>> registry, due to the small value-space. Are people concerned that the >>> Additional flag will also run out of space? >> >>Yes, I think that is an issue. 48 flags may sound like a lot, but the >>existing 8 flags got used up fairly quickly and suddenly; one draft >>grabbed four flag bits. So FCFS doesn't really seem like an appropriate >>policy here. The other possible policies are all subject to politics, >>but at least Standards Action comes with early allocation. >> >> >> >> >> >>___ >>BESS mailing list >>BESS@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: (with COMMENT)
Eric, For my own understanding and apologies if this is a dumb question, but I read this in RFC5226: "Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG.” What do you mean by "at least Standards Action comes with early allocation”? This still requires an RFC or... do you mean there will be a way to register bits earlier than the RFC milestone? Thank you. Jorge On 5/4/16, 10:48 PM, "BESS on behalf of EXT Eric C Rosen" wrote: >On 5/3/2016 6:48 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> I am curious why the >> "Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags" registry needs a >> standards-action policy. It's pretty obvious why for the main flag >> registry, due to the small value-space. Are people concerned that the >> Additional flag will also run out of space? > >Yes, I think that is an issue. 48 flags may sound like a lot, but the >existing 8 flags got used up fairly quickly and suddenly; one draft >grabbed four flag bits. So FCFS doesn't really seem like an appropriate >policy here. The other possible policies are all subject to politics, >but at least Standards Action comes with early allocation. > > > > > >___ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: (with COMMENT)
On 5/3/2016 6:48 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: I am curious why the "Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags" registry needs a standards-action policy. It's pretty obvious why for the main flag registry, due to the small value-space. Are people concerned that the Additional flag will also run out of space? Yes, I think that is an issue. 48 flags may sound like a lot, but the existing 8 flags got used up fairly quickly and suddenly; one draft grabbed four flag bits. So FCFS doesn't really seem like an appropriate policy here. The other possible policies are all subject to politics, but at least Standards Action comes with early allocation. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags/ -- COMMENT: -- I do not suggest a change to the draft, but I am curious why the "Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags" registry needs a standards-action policy. It's pretty obvious why for the main flag registry, due to the small value-space. Are people concerned that the Additional flag will also run out of space? Or that people will define "bad" or non-interoperable extensions? ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
