Hi Tom,
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 12:25 PM tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> > Sent: 22 June 2024 09:41 > > Hi WG, > > We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo for > an early code point allocation for the codepoints listed in - > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-10.html#table-7 > > These are the codepoints for the latest changes made to align with > draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con as per - > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/U2AIec7Vk9LomZM-LlvhxGywQgA/ > > The chairs would like to know if there are any objections to adding these > new metric types and keeping a range aside for user defined metrics. > > <tp> > Looking at what I think is the right table, I see that the value zero is > reserved which I always think is a good start. But this request allows the > value of 255 as part of the range which I always think a bad idea. I think > that this, the maximum value, should be reserved e.g. lest the range is > fully assigned and a value is needed to act as an escape. For such > purposes, I think one value is enough so I think that the range should end > at 254 nd tnot 255 > > Dhruv: Looking at our existing allocations at https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml We do not mark 255 (or equivalent MAX) as reserved. If we want to do it, I prefer we discuss this independently and apply it across all PCEP registries! I will also write to IANA to find out if they have a suggestion on what ought to be the best practice for this! Thanks! Dhruv > Tom Petch > > Further, RFC 7120 requires one to meet the following criteria to proceed: > > b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to > handling the protocol entities defined by the code points > (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described > in an Internet-Draft. > > c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if > there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later > specifications must be seamlessly interoperable. > > If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria or believes > that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason, please send > an email to the PCE mailing list explaining why. If the chairs hear no > objections by Monday, July 8th, we will kick off the early allocation > request. > > Note that there was an earlier allocation request where some codepoints > were already allocated by IANA - > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8jv4slxI_K3p4qqUPRlAjSgScOA/ > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
