On 21 Aug 2017, at 10:58, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Pete,
On 8/21/17, 11:40 AM, "Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-08-21
IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-28
IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31
Summary: Almost Ready
The content of this document is fine. However, I think the IANA
registry
stuff
is not ready.
Major issues:
I think the registrations other than for Endpoint and Color are
incorrect
and
should not be in this document. Certainly the "Reference" field for
1, 2,
5, 6,
and 7 should not be "This document", given that the syntax and
semantics
for
these values are defined in other documents.
The authors can fix these.
For 1, 2, 6, and 7, that's easy; the drafts defining the values can do
the registrations. For 5, the reference would be to an existing RFC that
doesn't do the registration. I'm not sure what to do about that; perhaps
register it here and make the reference both 5640 and this document.
However, when someone goes to update 5640 some day, they're going to
have to put into the IANA considerations to update both the OSPF and BGP
registries. I'm not sure how to keep track of that. Perhaps saying that
this document "Updates: 5640"? That doesn't seem great either.
I also think that having things in
this registry which are also used by the BGP registry is asking for
trouble:
You wouldn't want the references for the two registries to get out of
sync.
This seems like a mess to me. Would it be possible for IANA to simply
rename
the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry to "BGP
and
OSPF
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs", and share the registry
between
the
two protocols? Then have this (and other) document(s) add values to
that
registry. That way, the documents that actually define the codepoints
can
be
put into the registry.
We’ve already had a protracted discussion on the IANA registries. It
is
not possible as BGP advertises some of the attributes in BGP
communities
rather than tunnel attributes (e.g., color).
Yuck. I'll try not to prolong the discussion much further, but did you
consider the possibility of having some of the attributes appear twice,
with one saying "For BGP communities only" and the other saying, "For
OSPF tunnels only"? What a lovely mess. :-(
Thanks,
Acee
Cheers,
pr
Minor issues:
None.
Nits/editorial comments:
In section 7.1, please add:
[RFC Editor: Please replace "TBD1" in section 3 with the registry
value
allocated by IANA, and remove this note].
That will save them from hunting.
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478