How can we clarify the wording. If it is misleading you, we need to
improve it. The text is not asking to create an entry (i.e. it does
not "ask for an assignment"), but rather to change an entry that already
exists. (And obviously, it won't do so until and if the document
becomes an RFC.)
Yours,
Joel
On 6/18/2021 12:20 PM, tom petch wrote:
From: Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com>
Sent: 18 June 2021 16:29
Tom, I am not sure what you mean by "the update has happened"> The code
point has been assigned. Assuming this document becomes an RFC, it will
be significantly clearer if the 303 code point IANA entry points at this
for information instead of 5309. So this document requests that update.
<tp>
I mean that the IANA Registry has been updated to include 303 with a reference
to 5309 so I think it wrong of this I-D to ask for assignment which is what I
see it doing with
IANA need to update the "Interface Types(ifType)" with the following status
types:
| 303 | p2pOverLan | Point to Point over LAN interface |
It should only ask for the reference to be changed and should also spell out
that the assignment was made by Expert Review since that may otherwise be
unclear to users..
Likewise the update to the YANG module is automatic, has happened and so
specifying it here can only confuse IMHO.
And elsewhere I find the flavour misleading. The abstract and introduction
should IMHO reference RFC5309 as the source of p2pOverLan, add that the values
have been assigned by Expert Review and that this I-D ... well I am not clear
what it does except lay claim to things that others have already done with
RFC5309 and expert review :-)
I think too that camel case is problematic. SMI uses it, YANG does not but we
are now likely stuck with identity p2pOverLan .
Tom Petch
Yours,
Joel
On 6/18/2021 7:47 AM, tom petch wrote:
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern
<j...@joelhalpern.com>
Sent: 16 June 2021 21:46
This document (and the code point) are intended to be in line with 5309.
I believe they are. If we got it wrong, please help us fix it.
A reference would be reasonable to add. (The IANA entry for the code
point does reference 5309.)
<tp>
which confused me as RFC5309 has no IANA considerations and no reference to
303. I understand how this is so but think that this I-D could explain this.
I think that the I-D is wrong to ask IANA to perform an update - the update has
happened.
What would help would be for this I-D to explain that the allocation was made
by Expert Review and to ask that IANA update the reference to point to this I-D
and then this I-D can point back to RFC5309. This is almost an updates to 5309
as it give a value to the specification - I can see the IESG having fun with
that concept but I would go for it.
I think too that this I-D should reference and build on RFC5309. At present it
looks like an Unused Ref.
Tom Petch
Thank you,
Joel
On 6/16/2021 4:41 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Joel,
At first I wondered where this document should reside and then decided that LSR
is probably as good as any other place.
Can you guys check whether it is mostly in line with
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5309/ and comment as to whether it should
be referenced?
Thanks,
Acee
On 6/16/21, 11:10 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <lsr-boun...@ietf.org on
behalf of j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
Recently, Ericsson requested and received an IF Type assignment from
IANA (with expert review) for point-to-point over Ethernet links.
It was noted during the discussion around the assignment that a document
(eventually, we hope, an RFC) describing how to use that and why we
asked for it would be helpful.
The below announcement is that draft. We would like to work with the
community to improve and clarify teh draft.
Thank you,
Joel
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 07:00:04 -0700
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Interface Stack Table Definition for Point to
Point (P2P) Interface over LAN
Authors : Daiying Liu
Joel Halpern
Congjie Zhang
Filename : draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00.txt
Pages : 7
Date : 2021-06-16
Abstract:
The point-to-point circuit type is one of the mainly used circuit
types in link state routing protocol. It is important to identify
the correct circuit type when forming adjacencies, flooding link
state database packets, and monitor the link state. This document
defines point-to-point interface type and relevant stack tables to
provide benefit for operation, maintenance and statistics.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan/
There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
i-d-annou...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
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 mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
