IANA has updated the IETF SID YANG Range registrations for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher, as we requested. This early SID allocation is valid for a year. Hopefully, we would make it permanent by its expire time.
Regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Amanda Baber via RT > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:05 AM > Cc: [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [IANA #1367443] YANG SID Range allocation for > draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher > > Hi Mahesh, all, > > We've updated the IETF SID YANG Range registrations to read as follows: > > 2450 50 ietf-voucher (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-07-15, expires > 2025-07-15) [draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-12] > > 2500 50 ietf-voucher-request (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-07-15, > expires 2025-07-15) [draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-12] > > Please see > https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-sid > > If the document hasn't been approved for publication by next July, we'll > contact you about renewing for another year. > > thanks, > Amanda > > On Mon Jul 15 22:55:58 2024, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Amanda, > > > > Please find inlined the request from the chairs of ANIMA WG, for the > > request of an early SID allocation, which I am approving. Let me know > > if there are any questions. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > On Jul 14, 2024, at 8:06 PM, Sheng JIANG <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Mahesh, > > > > > > The ANIMA working group has worked on draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis > > > for a long period. We feel it is in a steady stage and would like to > > > ask your approval for the following Early Allocation with IANA: > > > > > > 1. Registry: "IETF YANG SID Range" - > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-sid/yang-sid.xhtml > > > > > > 2. Requested registry entries: > > > > > > Entry Point Size Module Name Reference > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 2450 50 ietf-voucher > > > I-D.ietf-anima-rfc8366bis > > > 2500 50 ietf-voucher-request > > > I-D.ietf-anima-rfc8366bis > > > > > > 3. Explanation > > > > > > These two entry points are currently listed in the registry with > > > a) obsolete Module Name > > > b) wrong reference > > > c) without yet having received an official Early allocation > > > > > > The SID definition was moved from I-D.ietf-anima-constrained-voucher > > > some > > > time > > > into I-D.ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, and in that process the Module Names > > > where changed. Early Allocations are now becoming necessary as the > > > registry is about to be initially finalized with its defining RFC > > > (I-D.ietf-core- > > > sid) > > > being in > > > RFC-editor/AUTH48. > > > > > > Justification/stability: the SID range definitions are in rfc8366bis > > > since at least > > > 2022 and are stable. > > > > > > 4. Contact: Toerless Eckert (co-author) > > > Sheng Jiang (WG chair) > > > > > > Many thanks and best regards, > > > > > > Sheng (with WG chair hat) > > > > > On Jul 1, 2024, at 6:36 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <iana- > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Esko (note: we'll need Sheng or Toerless to sign off), > > > > > > It looks like the registrations still match the table in the AUTH48 > > > version of draft-ietf-core-sid. I just sent the RFC Editor a note on > > > Friday letting them know that we were going to approach the chairs > > > and AD about getting early allocations approved for these instead, > > > so they should be removed. > > > > > > It sounds, though, like we need to remove these registrations > > > entirely for now while we get chair and AD approval for new early > > > allocations for draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis. > > > > > > Sheng or Toerless, can you confirm that IANA can return 2450 (size > > > 50) and 2500 (size 50) to the Unassigned pool for now? > > > > > > We also need someone to supply the following for any registrations, > > > along with approval from a chair and AD: > > > > > > Entry Point: > > > Size: > > > Module Name: > > > Reference: > > > > > > thanks, > > > Amanda > > > > > > On Mon Jul 01 08:06:42 2024, [email protected] wrote: > > >> Hello Amanda, all, > > >> > > >> Is there an updated / recent text for draft-ietf-core-sid-24 Table > > >> 4 that shows the initial registry contents? Because it looks like > > >> the latest version I can see (-24) is not in sync with the related > > >> ANIMA drafts. And that's pretty confusing. > > >> > > >> Firstly, draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-22 does not currently > > >> register/define the SID ranges 2450 and 2500. This has been taken > > >> over by draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis. > > >> > > >> Looking at the 8366bis draft, I can see the following ranges are > > >> used: > > >> > > >> 2400 - not used/defined anywhere > > >> 2450 - defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- > > >> anima-rfc8366bis-11#name-ietf-voucher-sid-values > > >> 2500 - defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- > > >> anima-rfc8366bis-11#name-ietf-voucher-request-sid-va > > >> > > >> Note that 2450 is named "ietf-voucher" and not "ietf-constrained- > > >> voucher" like listed in the Table 4 text. > > >> Also 2500 is named "ietf-voucher-request" and not > > >> "ietf-constrained- voucher-request" as listed in Table 4. > > >> And 2400, which points to RFC 8366 in Table 4, was never really > > >> used by RFC 8366 and is now followed up by using the range 2450 > > >> instead, if 8366bis version -11 is correct. > > >> > > >> So the requested note in the IANA Considerations section has to be > > >> made in draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, not in constrained-voucher. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Esko > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Amanda Baber via RT <[email protected]> > > >> Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2024 01:28 > > >> Cc: [email protected] > > >> Subject: [IANA #1367443] YANG SID Range allocation for draft-ietf- > > >> anima-constrained-voucher > > >> > > >> Dear Mahesh, Sheng, and Toerless, > > >> > > >> The RFC Editor has pointed out that RFC-to-be 9595, currently in > > >> AUTH48, made two allocations for draft-ietf-anima-constrained- > > >> voucher from the IETF YANG SID Range registry's "RFC Required" > > >> range. > > >> > > >> It appears that we need to ask you to approve an RFC 7120 early > > >> allocation for these registrations instead, so that they can be > > >> removed from RFC-to-be 9595: > > >> > > >> Entry Point Size Module Name Reference > > >> 2450 50 ietf-constrained-voucher [draft-ietf-anima-constrained- > > >> voucher-22] > > >> 2500 50 ietf-constrained-voucher-request [draft-ietf-anima- > > >> constrained-voucher-22] > > >> > > >> Please see > > >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-sid > > >> > > >> We have author Michael Richardson's agreement, but we need > > >> confirmation from the AD and at least one chair to proceed. > > >> > > >> If this is approved, we'll mark these assignments "TEMPORARY," set > > >> a > > >> 2025 renewal date, and contact you about renewing on a yearly basis > > >> until the document is approved. We would also need the authors to > > >> add a subsection to the IANA Considerations that notes that these > > >> registrations have been made. > > >> > > >> thanks, > > >> > > >> Amanda Baber > > >> IANA Operations Manager > > > > > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
