Jeff: Answer below. Please note if we specify the ranges you seek, we will need to go through WG LC. It can run in parallel with the other calls.
Sue -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Haas [mailto:jh...@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 5:12 PM To: drafts-lastc...@iana.org Cc: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-...@tools.ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana (aretana); Mach Chen; Susan Hares; General Area Review Team Subject: Re: [IANA #818133] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard +gen-art review who noted similar issues in the registration policy On Apr 10, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Pearl Liang via RT <drafts-lastc...@iana.org> wrote: > Hi Sue, and Jeff, > > Thank you Sue for clarifying the timeline and the IANA actions. Your > instructions are very clear. Just a few nits/question. > > - Regarding the Form for new created registries: > > Form: Sub-type Value, Name, Reference, Registration Type > > Can you clarify what types of information will go to the element "Registration Type" > in the BGP Extended Communities registry? I believe Sue had intended this to match the form of the existing "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types" registry. This includes sub-type value and name as fields with reference to the document and date. Is that right, Sue? Sue: Yes this was my understanding of your intent. Did you have any other intent? > > - This is likely for Jeff. I noticed now that the two new > registrations for Part 2 Sub-Types and Part 3 Sub-Types have different names in the IC section: > > /snip/ > IANA is requested to create the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use > Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry. It should be seeded > with the following Sub-Type: > > 0x08 - Flow spec redirect IPv4 format. > > IANA is requested to create the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use > Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry. It should be seeded > with the following Sub-Type: > > 0x08 - Flow spec redirect AS-4byte format. > /snip/ I think the text was unclear. The intention is to create two new registries in the form of the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Type". The new registries are distinct in that the first octet value (the type) is 0x81 and 0x82 for Part 2 and Part 3 respectively. Within each of those registries, there is a single entry registered,as per above. Please see the attachment at the end of this mail for new proposed IANA Considerations text that I believe conveys this intent. It contains all edits to date. > > Please update the names to the one in Sue's comment if the names > should be consistent in both sub-regisries. > > I'll let you work on the action items on your end. If you have > questions for us, please contact us. > > Thanks, > ~pl > > > On Fri Apr 10 00:33:05 2015, sha...@ndzh.com wrote: >> Pearl: >> >> This is my understanding of what needs to change, and hopefully >> answers all your questions. I apologize that this draft got to you >> without the new form. >> >> I'll wait for an acknowledgement from Jeff that he is re-writing the >> draft to cover these changes. Once Jeff has re-written the draft, >> this draft will be 1 week WG LC to cover this change. Please set >> your timer to check on this in 2 week. >> >> Answers to your questions: >> O Action 1, Q1: the RFC should be [RFC5575, RFC-to-Be] On Action 2, >> this is correct, Please update the free space in the registry to >> indicate only 0x83 to 0x8f are free. Agreed. >> >> On action 3, Q1: Please create a new entry under the following web- >> page >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended >> - >> communities.xhtml >> >> Name the web page the following: >> "Generic Transitive Experimental Use >> Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry. >> >> Form: Sub-type Value, Name, Reference, Registration Type >> >> Sub-Type Value Name Reference Registration-type >> 0x00-0x07 TBD TBD >> Standards action >> >> 0x08 Flow Spec redirect >> AS-4byte format [This-RFC] Standards >> >> 0x09-0x40 TBD TBD Standards >> action >> 0x41-0xff Reserved Sue, is there any reason to not use a similar registration range as the 0x80 range? I.e.: 0x00-0xbf - FCFS 0xc0-0xff - IETF review? Sue: I am fine with use but it was not spelled out in the draft. If this is the range, we will need a 2 Week LC to confirm this range for both types for both types. Revise the draft so IANA can confirm, and I'll start the 2 WG LC in parallel with the other processes. >> >> >> On action 3, Q4: >> Please create a new entry under the following web-page >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended >> - >> communities.xhtml >> >> Name the web page the following: >> "Generic Transitive Experimental Use >> Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry. >> >> Form: Sub-type Value, Name, Reference, Registration Type >> >> Example: >> Sub-Type Value Name Reference Registration-type >> 0x00-0x07 TBD TBD >> Standards action >> >> 0x08 Flow Spec redirect >> AS-4byte format [This-RFC] Standards >> >> 0x09-0x40 TBD TBD Standards >> action >> 0x41-0xff Reserved >> >> >> Sue Hares >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pearl Liang via RT [mailto:drafts-lastc...@iana.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:42 PM >> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-...@tools.ietf.org; >> i...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org >> Subject: [IANA #814082] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect- >> rt-bis-03.txt> (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended >> Community) to Proposed Standard >> >> (BEGIN IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS) >> >> IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: >> >> IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03. >> Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please >> report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. >> >> IANA has several questions about some of the actions requested in the >> IANA Considerations section of this document. >> >> We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: >> >> IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four >> actions which IANA is required to complete. >> >> First, in the Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community >> Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended >> Communities registry located at: >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ >> >> the existing registration for Type Value 0x08 will have its name >> updated from: >> >> Flow spec redirect >> >> to: >> >> Flow spec redirect AS-2byte format >> >> and have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ] >> >> QUESTION [1]: This draft indicates that it updates RFC5575 according >> to the header information in the draft. Is the author intended to >> remove the existing defining reference from the registry? >> >> >> Second, in the BGP Transitive Extended Community Types subregistry >> also in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities >> registry located at: >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ >> >> two new registrations will be added as follows: >> >> Type Value: 0x81 >> Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 >> (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental >> Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" Registry) >> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] >> >> Type Value: 0x82 >> Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 >> (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental >> Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" Registry) >> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] >> >> Third, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive >> Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry. >> >> IANA QUESTION [1] -> Where should this new registry be located? Is >> it a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an >> existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in >> which registry will it be contained? In the same BGP Extended >> Communities located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended- >> communities registry? >> >> IANA QUESTION [2] -> What rules should be used for maintenance of >> this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to >> select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry. >> >> QUESTION: [3] What is the range for this new Part 2 Sub-Types >> registry? >> >> QUESTION: [4] Is the author intended to use the same table format as >> the existing sub-registry "Generic Transitive Experimental Use >> Extended Community Sub-Types" >> which has >> the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and >> (Registration) Date? >> >> IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the >> new registry as follows: >> >> Type Value: 0x08 >> Name: Flow spec redirect IPv4 format >> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] >> >> Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic >> Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry. >> >> IANA QUESTION [1] -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it >> a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an >> existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in >> which registry will it be contained? >> >> IANA QUESTION [2] -> What rules should be used for maintenance of >> this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to >> select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry. >> >> QUESTION: [3] What is the range for this new Part 3 Sub-Types >> registry? >> >> QUESTION: [4] Is the author intended to use the same table format as >> the existing sub-registry "Generic Transitive Experimental Use >> Extended Community Sub-Types" >> which has >> the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and >> (Registration) Date? >> >> IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the >> new registry as follows: >> >> Type Value: 0x08 >> Name: FFlow spec redirect AS-4byte format >> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] >> >> IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones required >> to be completed upon approval of this document. >> >> Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed >> until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This >> message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. >> >> Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early >> allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more >> information, please see RFC 7120. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Pearl Liang >> ICANN >> >> (END IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS) >> >> >> On Wed Mar 18 20:33:49 2015, iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: >>> >>> The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG >>> (idr) >>> to >>> consider the following document: >>> - 'Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community' >>> <draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt> as Proposed >>> Standard >>> >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >>> solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive >>> comments to the i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-08. >>> Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In >>> either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to >>> allow automated sorting. >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> >>> This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec >>> Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575 >>> (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The file can be obtained via >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt- >>> bis/ >>> >>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt- >>> bis/ballot/ >>> >>> >>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
