Hi Loa, all, A note about this:
> Yeah - you are requesting code points from registries where the > registration procedures are "Expert Review". But those are not early > allocation, they are permanent. There is a kind of hybrid early allocation/Expert Review procedure for the IS-IS Exert Review registries, which is what I understood to be in use here. If the experts approve, we mark the registrations as temporary and ask them to re-approve a year later. It's described in Section 4 of RFC 7370: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7370#section-4 thanks, Amanda On Tue Jun 02 18:01:21 2020, l...@pi.nu wrote: > 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 <l...@pi.nu > > <mailto:l...@pi.nu>> 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 <mailto: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 > > <mailto:l...@pi.nu> > > Senior MPLS Expert > > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
