Re-, I agree with you that many tunneling schemes are not present in the IANA registry but is that a problem? I don't think so because registrations are for a reason. The natural way from where I sit is that any specification that, for example, defines a specific YANG module for a tunneling scheme not currently in the IANA registry, and needs a specific interface type, will make a request for a code assignment. FWIW, we are making this work because we had a concrete case (draft-ietf-softwire-yang) which needs to augment the YANG interface module for a specific tunnel scheme. To that aim, we requested IANA to assign a new type and designed this module to access to tunnel types maintained by IANA. When a new registration is made, the module defined in draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel will be updated automatically by IANA. I fail to see why the "best course of action" for this document is to register new types without defining the usage. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Black, David [mailto:David.Black@xxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : jeudi 9 mai 2019 15:46 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc : softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-softwire- > iftunnel.all@xxxxxxxx; Black, David > Objet : RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04 > > > [Med] The intent of the draft is to reflect the current registered > tunnels types. > ... > > [Med] Registering new tunnel types is not in the scope set for this > draft. > > I understand that, but as stated in the review, I don't think that it's > the best course of action. The email below appears to reject all of the > IETF Last Call comments in the review and in particular presents the scope > of the draft as fixed and unchangeable; that's unfortunate. On that > basis, I will agree to disagree and leave these IETF Last Call concerns to > the ADs to sort out. > > Thanks, --David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx > > <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:50 AM > > To: Black, David; tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-softwire- > iftunnel.all@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04 > > > > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > > > Hi David, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : David Black via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > > > Envoyé : mercredi 8 mai 2019 00:46 > > > À : tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > > > Cc : softwires@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-softwire- > > > iftunnel.all@xxxxxxxx > > > Objet : Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04 > > > > > > Reviewer: David Black > > > Review result: Not Ready > > > > > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review > > team's > > > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were > > written > > > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the > document's > > > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to > the > > > IETF discussion list for information. > > > > > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider > this > > > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always > CC > > > tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. > > > > > > This draft defines a YANG module for tunnel types based on the MIB-2 > > > tunnel type registry maintained by IANA. > > > > > > My fundamental concern with this draft is that the MIB-2 tunnel type > > > registry is seriously incomplete and out of date, as there are a large > > > number of tunnel types that aren't included in that registry, e.g., > IPsec > > > tunnel-mode AMT tunneling. In its current form, that registry does > not > > > appear to be a good starting point for specifying YANG management of > > > tunnels. > > > > > > A limited justification that I could envision for defining this YANG > module > > > would be to use it for mechanical translations to YANG of existing > MIBs > > > that use MIB-2 tunnel types - if that's the justification, then it > would need > > > to be clearly stated in an applicability statement within this draft, > > > > [Med] The intent of the draft is to reflect the current registered > tunnels > > types. This is mentioned in the introduction: > > > > This document specifies the initial version of the iana-tunnel-type > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > YANG module identifying tunnel interface types. The module reflects > > ^^^^^^^^ > > IANA's registry maintained at [TUNNELTYPE-IANA-REGISTRY]. The latest > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > revision of this module can be obtained from the IANA web site. > > > > and the > > > discussion of extension of this YANG module would need to be aligned > > with > > > that limited applicability. > > > > [Med] This is an IANA-maintained module. That is, when a new tunnel type > is > > registered, the module will be automatically updated to include that new > > type identity: > > > > When this registry is modified, the YANG module iana-tunnel-type > > must be updated as defined in RFCXXXX. > > > > > > > > The proverbial "right thing to do" would be to update both the MIB-2 > > tunnel > > > type registry and this draft with all of the currently known tunnel > types. > > > > [Med] Registering new tunnel types is not in the scope set for this > draft. It is > > up to the documents defining these tunnel types or making use of them to > > make a request to IANA. For example, this is the approach followed in > > softwire wg for at least three tunnel types (16, 17, 18). > > > > > The references section of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim > > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update- > shim/) > > > may help in identifying tunnel protocols that should be included. > > > > > > A minor concern involves the use of RFC 8085 as the reference for UDP > > > tunnels; while that's certainly better than the existing use of RFC > 4087, due > > > to the extensive design guidance in RFC 8085, designers of UDP- > > encapsulated > > > tunnel protocols ought to be encouraged to register their protocols as > > > separate > > > tunnel types (e.g., so the network operator has some idea of what the > UDP > > > tunnel is actually being used for). This draft ought to encourage > tunnel > > > protocol designers to register their own tunnel types in preference to > > reuse > > > of the UDP tunnel type, including placing text in the IANA tunnel type > > > registry and this YANG module to encourage that course of action. > > > > > > > [Med] Wouldn't that recommendation be better added to documents such > > as: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-iftype-reg-02?
