From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: 24 June 2024 09:20 Hi Tom,
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 12:25 PM tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto: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! <tp> OK, a little reluctantly. I do not have to hand an easy way of checking which registries have reserved min and max of a range but I think of it as Best Practice and so encourage it with any new registry. (I am thinking of it as a good idea beyond this WG or even routing). Tom Petch 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
