Alvaro
Please can you add a line or two of motivation to the draft.
I don't think it needs to be major text, but it will be useful to
record the reason for the update to the registry.
Thanks
Stewart
On 06/03/2013 15:05, Acee Lindem wrote:
I think the draft can talk to the motivation in general terms with the
embedded routing draft cited as an example.
Thanks,
Acee
On 3/6/13 7:01 AM, "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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@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.
.
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
.
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html