Re: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
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" 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 chai
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" 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 Anderssonemail: 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
Re: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
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" 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 Anderssonemail: l...@mail01.huawei.com >Senior MPLS Expert l...@pi.nu >Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 &g
Re: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
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 Anderssonemail: 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
Re: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
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
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
[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
