On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 10:50:02PM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, Hi Suresh, Thanks for reading over the document. > At the recently concluded IETF119 bpf WG meeting, I had asked a > question to Dave about the Provisional registrations for BPF > instruction conformance groups. Section 5.1 of draft-ietf-bpf-isa-01 > talks about Provisional registrations, but does not elaborate > further. Specifically, I think it would be good to cover the > following cases > > * Do we allow conversions from Provisional to Permanent? If so how? Would you mind please pointing to examples of other RFCs we can look at to see how this is typically specified? My assumption was that we would just initiate a standards action or IESG review to change the state from Provisional to Permanent (meaning, that it was sufficient to simply define the registration policies for Permanent and Provisional), but it sounds like we need to be more explicit in our language. It seems that RFC8126 section 4.13 doesn't specify a standard method for converting between states: 4.13. Provisional Registrations Some existing registries have policies that allow provisional registration: see URI Schemes [RFC7595] and Email Header Fields [RFC3864]. Registrations that are designated as provisional are usually defined as being more readily created, changed, reassigned, moved to another status, or removed entirely. URI Schemes, for example, allow provisional registrations to be made with incomplete information. Allowing provisional registration ensures that the primary goal of maintaining a registry -- avoiding collisions between incompatible semantics -- is achieved without the side effect of "endorsing" the protocol mechanism the provisional value is used for. Provisional registrations for codepoints that are ultimately standardized can be promoted to permanent status. The criteria that are defined for converting a provisional registration to permanent will likely be more strict than those that allowed the provisional registration. If your registry does not have a practical limit on codepoints, perhaps adding the option for provisional registrations might be right for that registry as well. Hmm, and looking at RFC 7595 [0] section 7.3 Change Control as a possible xample, it specifies the following: 7.3. Change Control Registrations can be updated in the registry by the same mechanism as required for an initial registration. In cases where the original definition of the scheme is contained in an IESG-approved document, update of the specification also requires IESG approval. 'Provisional' registrations can be updated by the original registrant or anyone designated by the original registrant. In addition, the IESG can reassign responsibility for a 'provisional' registration scheme or can request specific changes to a scheme registration. This will enable changes to be made to schemes where the original registrant is out of contact or unwilling or unable to make changes. Transition from 'provisional' to 'permanent' status can be requested and approved in the same manner as a new 'permanent' registration. Transition from 'permanent' to 'historical' status requires IESG approval. Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' can be requested by anyone authorized to update the 'provisional' registration. [0]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7595#page-9 Dave, what do you think? I guess we should add a paragraph(s) explaining the processes for this state machine? > * Do Provisional registrations timeout after a while if they are not > made Permanent? Dave? I'm not sure if this has been discussed or what the norm would be. > * How do we remove Provisional registrations? Are the codepoints freed up? Also not sure if this has been discussed or what the norm should be. > > I have opened an issue on the issue tracker for this at > https://github.com/ietf-wg-bpf/ebpf-docs/issues/113 . Comments are > welcome and greatly appreciated. Ack, thanks. Whatever we decide, we'll update the GitHub issue accordingly. Thanks, David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
