ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00

2013-03-06 09:01:49
Chairs

Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below.

Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft?

Certainly I think it would be useful in IESG review.

Stewart

On 11/02/2013 21:15, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com> wrote:

Ben:

Hi!

Sorry for the delay, my filters put this in a different place..  I'm
explicitly adding the OSPF chairs.  Comments below.


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-01-16
IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-24

Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There is a significant IANA registration issue described in the review
body.

Major issues:

This draft carves out a significant part of a registry with an assignment
policy of "standards action" for "private use". It offers very little
motivation for the change. In my opinion, this sort of change should come
with a clear justification.

Specifically, the draft modifies the OSPFv3 Address Family Instance ID
registry to carve out half of the unassigned space for "private use". The
justification for this is a single sentence saying that some networks
need to use IIDs to identify specific applications. I think that needs
significant elaboration in order to motivate the change in a way that the
reader can evaluate.

My understanding from the OFPS list is that this is in support of
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, which is an informational
draft. I have to wonder why the draft under review was not simply the
IANA considerations for that draft.

I suggest one of two paths forward:

1) If this change is in support of that draft in particular, then this
draft should say that, and include a _normative_ reference. I recognize
the normative downref would complicate things--but I think that
complication is reasonable under the circumstances.

2) If this change is to support a general need that goes beyond
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, then this draft should
describe that need in enough detail for people to think about it, perhaps
with an informative reference to
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as an _example_.
In short (from the shepherd write-up): "The new range is for applications
that do not justify a standards track OSPFv3 Instance ID allocation. An
example would be "Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets"".

During pre-publication review, the WG chairs asked us to not include
explicit references to draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as that
is just an example and not the only potential user/driver.  I don't have a
problem adding an example, but I want to get agreement/comments/guidance
from the chairs before adding the text.  Acee/Abhay??



Minor issues:

-- section 3:

I don't think it's appropriate to use normative language for IANA
requests. Especially not "MUST". (I think the strongest thing we can do
here is a polite request :-)  )   I suggest recasting that to descriptive
language, and removing section 2 and the RFC 2119 reference.
Yes, we already removed that in the -01 version.

Thanks!!

Alvaro.

.



--
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>