On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.