Re: [Lsr] Question on the early allocation - Re: [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

2020-06-03 Thread Loa Andersson 

Tony,

I guess that this shows that we should take care naming our registries.

In line please-

On 02/06/2020 23:24, tony...@tony.li wrote:


Hi Loa,


The code points are requested from "the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry",
howver the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" is a name space with 14 different
registries. I think the the registry you want to allocated code point
from the "TLV Codepoints registry”



I apologize for the confusion, you are certainly correct.

The confusion arises because the page is named “IS-IS TLV Codepoints” 
and the registry is the “TLV Codepoints Registry” so to be precise, we 
should request an allocation from the “IS-IS TLV Codepoints TLV 
Codepoints Registry”.  That does seem somewhat awkward and redundant 
redundant.


To reduce confusion in the future, perhaps the entire page should be 
renamed to “IS-IS Codepoints”?


In the party of the world there I'm active there is a tendency to call
"the page" the "name space", that stops us from repeating "registry" to
often, so we have name space, registry and sub-registry. This is as I
understand it a terminology IANA understands, even if there is no formal
acceptance of it.

Renaming the name space would require us to update a number of IS-IS
documents. I would advice against that, but if the wg decides to do it
try to help to get correct.

For the time being I'd say that we want to allocate the code points
from the "TLV Codepoints" reistry in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints"
namespace.

Doing that way it is also easier to find the correct registry.

>/Loa


Regards,
Tony



--

My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
loa.pi.nu@gmail


Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Question on the early allocation - Re: [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

2020-06-02 Thread Tony Przygienda 
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:59 AM Loa Andersson  wrote:

>
>
> For your draft the registries should be called:
>
> Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 (IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV); and
> Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS
> reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes,
> inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute
> TLVs)
>
> (Don't blame me, I didn't name the registries :) ).
>

draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection/
IANA section is calling the registries already what they are called
(without what the sub-TLVs are since the titles would explode). There is no
possiblity of mistaking them IMO

-- tony
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Question on the early allocation - Re: [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

2020-06-02 Thread Loa Andersson 

Tony,

inline plz.

On 02/06/2020 22:42, Tony Przygienda wrote:
Loa, fair points though I would say adoption is kind of a different 
kettle of fish than early allocation.


yeah - but the point I made, modulo some small updates in the IANA 
considerations I think the document is ready for wg adoption. And

really the updates in the IANA considerations is strictly not
necessary for wg adoption, but I prefer to have the IANA registries
in scope clearly pointed out.


RFC7120 does not seem to apply given ISIS registries are under expert 
review (largely due to historical reasons AFAIS).


Yeah - you are right. I missed that, was to focused on the requirements
in 7120.


I watch that with lots of interest since due to customer 
discussions/(deployment) planning we request with experts early 
allocation for 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection/ 


Yeah - you are requesting code points from registries where the 
registration procedures are "Expert Review". But those are not early

allocation, they are permanent.


We have however the benefit of not needing any new registries.


Yes, that is a blessing, but for a new registry you can actually capture
in the draft and populate it with code point values, the only thing is
that once you put a value in there it should not be changed. Especially
if you know of early implementations.

For your draft the registries should be called:

Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 (IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV); and
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS 
reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes, 
inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute 
TLVs)


(Don't blame me, I didn't name the registries :) ).


and both registries are found in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints namespace.

/Loa



thanks

-- tony

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:00 AM Loa Andersson > wrote:


Folks,

I have two questions on the early allocation.

RFC 7120 allows early allocation for two types of

     The processes described below assume that the document in
question is
     the product of an IETF Working Group (WG).  If this is not the
case,
     replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding Area Director".

draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy is an individual document, i.e. not a
product of a working group nor shepherded by an AD, and does not seem to
meet the criteria for early allocation.

Also. draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy request that IANA create a new
registry, as far as I understand new registries can't be created through
early allocation. It is hardly necessary.

The code points are requested from "the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry",
howver the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" is a name space with 14 different
registries. I think the the registry you want to allocated code point
from the "TLV Codepoints registry"

Since the document, at least I read it, well meet the criteria for
becoming a working document (minor update to the IANA section), I think
that the easy way out is to start the working group adoption poll.

/Loa


On 02/06/2020 12:52, Tony Li wrote:
 >
 > Hi Amanda,
 >
 >> However, the IANA Considerations section is missing some
information.
 >> How would we fill in the IIH, LSP, SNP, and Purge fields for the
TLV
 >> Codepoint registrations?
 >
 >
 > We’ve addressed this in
 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06..
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Sarah & Tony
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Lsr mailing list
 > Lsr@ietf.org 
 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
 >

-- 


My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
loa.pi.nu@gmail


Loa Andersson                        email: l...@pi.nu 
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr


___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr



--

My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
loa.pi.nu@gmail


Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Question on the early allocation - Re: [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

2020-06-02 Thread Loa Andersson 

Tony,

inline plz.

On 02/06/2020 22:42, Tony Przygienda wrote:
Loa, fair points though I would say adoption is kind of a different 
kettle of fish than early allocation.


yeah - but the point I made, modulo some small updates in the IANA 
considerations I think the document is ready for wg adoption. And

really the updates in the IANA considerations is strictly not
necessary for wg adoption, but I prefer to have the IANA registries
in scope clearly pointed out.


RFC7120 does not seem to apply given ISIS registries are under expert 
review (largely due to historical reasons AFAIS).


Yeah - you are right. I missed that, was to focused on the requirements
in 7120.


I watch that with lots of interest since due to customer 
discussions/(deployment) planning we request with experts early 
allocation for 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection/ 


Yeah - you are requesting code points from registries where the 
registration procedures are "Expert Review""



We have however the benefit of not needing any new registries.


Yes, that is a blessing, but for a new registry you can actually capture
in the draft and populate it with code point values, the only thing is
that once you put a value in there it should not be changed. Especially
if you know of early implementations.

For your draft the registries should be called:

Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 (IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV); and
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS 
reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes, 
inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute 
TLVs)


(Don't blame me, I didn't name the registries :) ).


and both registries are found in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints namespace.

/Loa



thanks

-- tony

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:00 AM Loa Andersson > wrote:


Folks,

I have two questions on the early allocation.

RFC 7120 allows early allocation for two types of

     The processes described below assume that the document in
question is
     the product of an IETF Working Group (WG).  If this is not the
case,
     replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding Area Director".

draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy is an individual document, i.e. not a
product of a working group nor shepherded by an AD, and does not seem to
meet the criteria for early allocation.

Also. draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy request that IANA create a new
registry, as far as I understand new registries can't be created through
early allocation. It is hardly necessary.

The code points are requested from "the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry",
howver the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" is a name space with 14 different
registries. I think the the registry you want to allocated code point
from the "TLV Codepoints registry"

Since the document, at least I read it, well meet the criteria for
becoming a working document (minor update to the IANA section), I think
that the easy way out is to start the working group adoption poll.

/Loa


On 02/06/2020 12:52, Tony Li wrote:
 >
 > Hi Amanda,
 >
 >> However, the IANA Considerations section is missing some
information.
 >> How would we fill in the IIH, LSP, SNP, and Purge fields for the
TLV
 >> Codepoint registrations?
 >
 >
 > We’ve addressed this in
 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06..
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Sarah & Tony
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Lsr mailing list
 > Lsr@ietf.org 
 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
 >

-- 


My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
loa.pi.nu@gmail


Loa Andersson                        email: l...@pi.nu 
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr


___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr



--

My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
loa.pi.nu@gmail


Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Question on the early allocation - Re: [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

2020-06-02 Thread tony . li 

Hi Loa,

> The code points are requested from "the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry",
> howver the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" is a name space with 14 different
> registries. I think the the registry you want to allocated code point
> from the "TLV Codepoints registry”


I apologize for the confusion, you are certainly correct.

The confusion arises because the page is named “IS-IS TLV Codepoints” and the 
registry is the “TLV Codepoints Registry” so to be precise, we should request 
an allocation from the “IS-IS TLV Codepoints TLV Codepoints Registry”.  That 
does seem somewhat awkward and redundant redundant.

To reduce confusion in the future, perhaps the entire page should be renamed to 
“IS-IS Codepoints”?

Regards,
Tony

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Question on the early allocation - Re: [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

2020-06-02 Thread Tony Przygienda 
Loa, fair points though I would say adoption is kind of a different kettle
of fish than early allocation.

RFC7120 does not seem to apply given ISIS registries are under expert
review (largely due to historical reasons AFAIS).

I watch that with lots of interest since due to customer
discussions/(deployment) planning we request with experts early allocation
for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection/
We have however the benefit of not needing any new registries.

thanks

-- tony

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:00 AM Loa Andersson  wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I have two questions on the early allocation.
>
> RFC 7120 allows early allocation for two types of
>
> The processes described below assume that the document in question is
> the product of an IETF Working Group (WG).  If this is not the case,
> replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding Area Director".
>
> draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy is an individual document, i.e. not a
> product of a working group nor shepherded by an AD, and does not seem to
> meet the criteria for early allocation.
>
> Also. draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy request that IANA create a new
> registry, as far as I understand new registries can't be created through
> early allocation. It is hardly necessary.
>
> The code points are requested from "the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry",
> howver the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" is a name space with 14 different
> registries. I think the the registry you want to allocated code point
> from the "TLV Codepoints registry"
>
> Since the document, at least I read it, well meet the criteria for
> becoming a working document (minor update to the IANA section), I think
> that the easy way out is to start the working group adoption poll.
>
> /Loa
>
>
> On 02/06/2020 12:52, Tony Li wrote:
> >
> > Hi Amanda,
> >
> >> However, the IANA Considerations section is missing some information.
> >> How would we fill in the IIH, LSP, SNP, and Purge fields for the TLV
> >> Codepoint registrations?
> >
> >
> > We’ve addressed this in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06..
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sarah & Tony
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Lsr mailing list
> > Lsr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> >
>
> --
>
> My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
> we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
> get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
> loa.pi.nu@gmail
>
>
> Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

[Lsr] Question on the early allocation - Re: [IANA #1171772] Early Allocations request for "Area Proxy for IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-04

2020-06-02 Thread Loa Andersson 

Folks,

I have two questions on the early allocation.

RFC 7120 allows early allocation for two types of

   The processes described below assume that the document in question is
   the product of an IETF Working Group (WG).  If this is not the case,
   replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding Area Director".

draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy is an individual document, i.e. not a
product of a working group nor shepherded by an AD, and does not seem to
meet the criteria for early allocation.

Also. draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy request that IANA create a new
registry, as far as I understand new registries can't be created through
early allocation. It is hardly necessary.

The code points are requested from "the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry",
howver the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" is a name space with 14 different
registries. I think the the registry you want to allocated code point
from the "TLV Codepoints registry"

Since the document, at least I read it, well meet the criteria for 
becoming a working document (minor update to the IANA section), I think

that the easy way out is to start the working group adoption poll.

/Loa


On 02/06/2020 12:52, Tony Li wrote:


Hi Amanda,

However, the IANA Considerations section is missing some information. 
How would we fill in the IIH, LSP, SNP, and Purge fields for the TLV 
Codepoint registrations?



We’ve addressed this in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06..


Thanks,
Sarah & Tony


___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr



--

My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
loa.pi.nu@gmail


Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr