Re: FW: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-08.txt

[vivek_1975 <vivek_1975@ziplip.com>]

Hi,

Hi i am not sure whether the question has been raised previously in this list. In the ccamp-lmp draft for all the messages, there is more emphasize on the transmission order. 

Can somebody answer why this STRICT requirement is enforced rather than the similar kind of mechanism followed in RSVP(Objects can come in any order).

Regards
Vivek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003, 6:15 AM
> To: "Ccamp-wg (E-mail)" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Subject: FW: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-08.txt
> 
> Here is the last IESG comment on this document.
> I think that Thomas had indeed uncovered a serious issue.
> With various other IANA controlled name spaces, we have 
> recently found that the IANA guidelines/rules for making
> assignments were either not clear or allowed for 
> assignments to be made too easily. That then later resulted
> in all sorts of let us say "un-friendly" discussions. We
> betetr try to avoid those in the future and so we must be
> very specific and very precise in the IANA guidelines for
> new namespaces.
> 
> Pls fix as part of your new revision.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: maandag 19 mei 2003 14:47
> To: Bert Wijnen
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-08.txt
> 
> 
> Discuss comments:
> 
> 
>    The LMP Message Type name space should be allocated as follows:
>    pursuant to the policies outlined in [RFC2434], the numbers in the
>    range 0-127 are allocated by Standards Action, 128-240 are allocated
>    through an Expert Review, and 241-255 are reserved for Private Use.
> 
> It might be good to expand on expert review just a bit. Is the
> intention that anyone can get one an allocation? Allocations only for
> stuff that will clearly eventually be published as an RFC? What sort
> of review is the expert expected to do? The more text one can give
> here, the less confusion there will be later should people disagree
> with the decision of the expert.
> 
>    The LMP Sub-object Class name space should be allocated as follows:
>    pursuant to the policies outlined in [RFC2434], the numbers in the
>    range of 0-127 are allocated by Standards Action, 128-247 are
>    allocated through an Expert Review, and 248-255 are reserved for
>    Private Use.
> 
> seems wrong. the sub-object assignment policy should be determined by
> the Class. I.e., when you create a class, you define what the policy
> should be for sub-classes. For some sub-classes, FCFS might be fine,
> for others maybe only standards action. One-size fits all doesn't seem
> right. I'd suggest something like:
> 
>    The policy for allocating values out of the LMP Sub-object Class
>    name space is part of the defintion of the specific Class
>    instance. When a Class is defined, its definition must also include
>    a description of the policy underwhich sub-objects are allocated.
> 
> note: that also means this needs to be done for all of the sub-objects
> that are defined in this document.
> 
>    The LMP Object Class type name space should be allocated as follows:
>    pursuant to the policies outlined in [RFC2434], the numbers in the
>    range 0-111 are allocated by Standards Action, 112-119 are allocated
>    through an Expert Review, and 120-127 are reserved for Private Use.
> 
> ditto   
> 
> 
> Thomas
>