Right to all of you. FCFS is already allocated, so that is OK.
TBD is what we want otherwise. That is no "recommendation" and no "specification". I would say, however, that sometimes it *is* appropriate to recommend values for IANA when there is a special reason for a particular value, but that reason is not strong enough to do early allocation. A > -----Original Message----- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu] > Sent: 18 September 2014 12:27 > To: OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS; Fatai Zhang; adr...@olddog.co.uk; pce@ietf.org > Cc: pce-cha...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts > > Oscar, > > yes - true, but there are also FCFS allocations, such a code point > allocation can be made for any document (also an individual draft). > > /Loa > > On 2014-09-18 13:12, OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I fully agree with the procedure suggested by Adrian. > > > > @Fatai. I guess all drafts (stable or not), except those that have an > > early allocation, will need to have a TBD value. A suggested value is > > usually (mis)interpreted as ³this is the specified value, though not > > official yet² > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Óscar > > > > El 18/09/14 13:06, "Loa Andersson" <l...@pi.nu> escribió: > > > >> Fatai, > >> > >> I agree with you - I also don't think this is only for the PCE > >> working group but should be applicable to the entire rtg area. > >> > >> /Loa > >> > >> On 2014-09-18 10:53, Fatai Zhang wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, I should say (2b) and (4), :-) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best Regards > >>> > >>> Fatai > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Fatai Zhang > >>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:32 PM > >>> To: 'adr...@olddog.co.uk'; pce@ietf.org > >>> Cc: pce-cha...@tools.ietf.org > >>> Subject: RE: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts > >>> > >>> Hi Adrian, > >>> > >>> I think the steps you proposed really make sense. > >>> > >>> I have one comment for clarification on step (2a) and (4), did you mean > >>> that it only needs to use "TBD" rather than the suggested values? > >>> > >>> In addtion, for the new drafts (or non-existing drafts with clash), can > >>> I re-order your steps as follows? :-) > >>> > >>> 1. Do not adopt any I-D as a working group draft if it specifies code > >>> points. > >>> > >>> 2. In the future, when implementations of an I-D become advanced enough > >>> to be close shipping or starting interop testing, use RFC 7120 to get > >>> code points allocated. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best Regards > >>> > >>> Fatai > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > >>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:43 AM > >>> To: pce@ietf.org > >>> Cc: pce-cha...@tools.ietf.org > >>> Subject: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts > >>> > >>> PCE working group, > >>> > >>> draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis is fixing a clash between an IANA allocation > >>> for RFC > >>> 7150 and an unallocated code point documented in a working group > >>> Internet-Draft > >>> that had been picked up and used by multiple implementations. > >>> > >>> Another clash has just been pointed out to me between RFC 7150 and > >>> draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions. > >>> > >>> The specifying of unallocated values in PCE I-Ds has got to stop before > >>> significant clashes happen in the field. Cease! Desist! It is not > >>> necessary, and > >>> there is a simple solution to get code points if you need them. > >>> > >>> Steps to be followed: > >>> > >>> 1. Identify all I-Ds that state or recommend values for code points > >>> (see below). > >>> > >>> 2. Decide whether the values shown are needed to support existing > >>> implementations. > >>> 2a. If so, make an immediate request to the WG chairs for early > >>> allocation of > >>> the code points using the procedures of RFC 7120. > >>> 2b. If not, make an immediate revision of the I-D removing the specific > >>> code > >>> point values. > >>> > >>> 3. In the future, when implementations of an I-D become advanced enough > >>> to be > >>> close shipping or starting interop testing, use RFC 7120 to get code > >>> points > >>> allocated. > >>> > >>> 4. Do not adopt any I-D as a working group draft if it specifies code > >>> points. > >>> > >>> Current drafts > >>> > >>> draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp specifies unallocated values > >>> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls suggests values > >>> draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp specifies an unallocated value > >>> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce suggests multiple unallocated values > >>> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations specifies and suggests > >>> multiple > >>> unallocated values > >>> > >>> Recently-expired drafts > >>> > >>> draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions specifies multiple unallocated > >>> values > >>> draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext recommends multiple unallocated values > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Adrian > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Pce mailing list > >>> Pce@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Pce mailing list > >>> Pce@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Loa Andersson email: l...@mail01.huawei.com > >> Senior MPLS Expert l...@pi.nu > >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pce mailing list > >> Pce@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede > contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la > persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda > notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización > puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este > mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta > misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. > > > > The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential > information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If > the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please > immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in > error and then delete it. > > > > Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, > pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da > pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, > fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização > pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem > por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via > e proceda a sua destruição > > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: l...@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert l...@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
