Hi Bruno, On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alia, Acee, WG > > > > *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2017 7:25 PM > *To:* Alia Atlas; [email protected]; OSPF List > *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06 > > > > Hi Alia, > > > > *From: *OSPF <[email protected]> on behalf of Alia Atlas < > [email protected]> > > *Date: *Friday, August 11, 2017 at 10:42 PM > *To: *"[email protected]" <draft-ietf-ospf- > [email protected]>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06 > > > > As is customary, I have done another AD review of > draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06. > First, I'd like to thank the authors for their work and the improvement. > > > > I have one minor issue on the IANA section. > > > > For the current FCFS space, I think it would be better to have > "Specification Required" so that there's a place to look to understand what > sub-TLVs are included. > > If the WG is happy with FCFS, that is fine too. > > > > I don’t have a strong opinion here. The goal is to be stingy for the code > points that overlap the corresponding IS-IS registry (with a single octet > type) and more liberal here. However, we’ve never gone all the way to FCFS > before and “Specification Required” would seem more in line with other IGP > registries. > > > > [Bruno] Alia, I see your point that we need a stable specification to > interop. On the other hand, in the IDR WG, there is a direction toward > having code points easier to get, in order to allow quicker implementations > and avoid squatting. I though the situation would be similar in OSPF, but > may be not. “Specification Required” seem to me roughly as hard to get a > code point from, than “Standard Action” with early allocation. Plus there > is a need to find a designated expert. > > > > What about changing the size of the ranges? e.g. > > - the first half for STD action (1 – 31999) > > - second half for FCFS (32000-65499) > > > > With 32k entries in each range, there seem to be “plenty” for everyone, > even if the IETF gets creative with many tunnel encapsulations and many > parameters for each. > The bar for Specification Required is much lower than Standard Action. It just looks for something to be written down. A web-page, an internet-draft, etc. all qualify. I prefer to be able to have folks know how to implement using the code-point, but there are tons available and having a FCFS range is useful. Acee has tracked better what the case is for OSPF - and I'm happy to have him make the call here. Regards, Alia > Thanks, > > Regards, > > --Bruno > > > > > > > > I'm asking for an IETF Last Call and will put this on the telechat on Aug > 31. > > > > Thanks – hope to clear some more of these “almost ready" documents prior > to next IETF. > > Acee > > > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
