Hi Jeff, I just sent a separate note about draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd from ticket [IANA #992766] to the people on the draft-string-all list. Thanks!
Amanda On Fri Dec 15 01:35:11 2017, jefftant.i...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Amanda, > > Please note, in the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd regretfully, > the authors have requested an allocation from OSPFv2 Extended Link > Opaque LSA TLVs while it should have been from OSPFv2 Extended Link > TLV Sub-TLVs registry. > > Updated draft has been published (draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd- > 08) and email to update the allocation (value of 6 from OSPFv2 > Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry) has been sent to iana-issues- > comm...@iana.org (so 6 is unavailable) > > > Back to draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload OSPFv3 allocations- it is quite > complicated and requires resolution. > I believe, the registry in question would be “OSPFv3 Extend-LSA Sub- > TLV”, please note - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions > has already suggested values 3(used already by the base draft for > route-tag) to 14 for their use. > > Hopefully I haven’t caused even more confusion than before, we just > need to sort out who is getting what ;-) > > Many thanks! > > Cheers, > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: OSPF <ospf-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Amanda Baber via RT > <iana-prot-param-comm...@iana.org> > Reply-To: <iana-prot-param-comm...@iana.org> > Date: Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 16:55 > Cc: <mnand...@ebay.com>, <luay.ja...@verizon.com>, <ospf@ietf.org> > Subject: [OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for > draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10 > > Hi all, > > As Peter pointed out, there appear to be issues with these > registrations. > > Is the first registry, "OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry," meant to > refer to "OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs" or "OSPFv2 Extended > Link TLV Sub-TLVs"? In the first of those, values 4, 5, and 11 are > available. In the second, values 4 and 5 are not available. Please see > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters > > For the second registry in the document, if "OSPFV3 Router Link TLV > Registry" refers to "OSPFv3 Router LSA Link Types," value 4 is not > available. Please see > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters > > For the third registry in the document, if "BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry" > refers to "BGP-LS NLRI-Types," value 1101 is available, but because > this is a Specification Required registry, we'll have to ask the > designated experts to confirm that this is OK. Can you confirm that > this is the correct registry? > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters > > You can see a list of registries here: > > https://www.iana.org/protocols > > thanks, > > Amanda Baber > Lead IANA Services Specialist > > On Thu Dec 14 08:52:23 2017, ppse...@cisco.com wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > > > On 14/12/17 01:39 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > Please provide allocations for the code points in > > > draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.txt: > > > > > > OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry > > > > more precisely, these should be allocated from "OSPFv2 Extended Link > > TLV > > Sub-TLVs" registry. The text in the draft should be updated as well > > to > > reflect the correct registry name. At this point it says "OSPF > > Extended > > Link TLVs Registry", which would suggest it is from a different, top > > level TLV registry. > > > > Also I see that value 5 has been taken by RFC8169 already. > > > > thanks, > > Peter > > > > > > > > i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - Suggested value 5 > > > > > > ii) Remote IPv4 address sub-TLV - Suggested value 4 > > > > > > iii) Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV - Suggested Value 11 > > > > > > OSPFV3 Router Link TLV Registry > > > > > > i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - suggested value 4 > > > > > > BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry [RFC7752] > > > > > > i)Link-Overload TLV - Suggested 1101 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Acee > > > > > > On 12/13/17, 2:57 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Acee Lindem has requested publication of draft-ietf-ospf-link- > > >> overload-10 > > >> as Proposed Standard on behalf of the OSPF working group. > > >> > > >> Please verify the document's state at > > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/ > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OSPF mailing list > > > OSPF@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > > . > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
