[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IANA assignments

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: 
The BAD thing is that someone else (some vendor) has used a value
from some other draft document... and THAT WAS and IS BAD.
If you want to use a value, you better MAKE SURE it is a value that
has been assigned and registered by IANA, that is if it is in IANA
maintained namespace.

The use of 3 for the CoS object was defined in many revisions of RSVP-TE. Nearly every vendor shipped an implementation at the time.

Even though there are other proper methods for signaling best-effort today (the Null-Service IntServ class), I doubt anybody will want to remove their old pre-standard code, because they won't want to break backward-compatibility with their older system software revisions.

This sort of thing has happened in the past, and IANA usually responded by marking the pre-standard value as "Reserved". For example, RSVP message type 14 was the pre-standard value used for Hello messages, and is now marked Reserved.

I realize that expired drafts aren't supposed to have an impact on these kinds of decisions, but there are shipping products currently on the market that still use this C-Type. 

It migth be good to point out which products did this BAD move.
And which document did they find them in?

Considering that the GMPLS-SONET/SDH draft version 0 was written years after RSVP-TE draft 01, where the CoS C-Type was originally defined, and after several vendors had already shipped product with it, I think the decision should be obvious.

draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-**.txt is not some fly-by-night proposal. And the C-Type in question (including its value) was in the draft for seven revisions (that's 3.5 years). This isn't something you casually ignore.

The person responsible for this draft should make sure to choose a different value before the draft becomes an RFC.

I am not so sure I agree.
We should try to not make things break in the market. But at the other hand, if we give into this kind of thing, it seems
we might also do away with IANA... and that seems not right to me.

Who is "we"? You sound as if there's a war on or something.

Last I heard, we (meaning all of us) were interested in making our routers work. And you can't do that if someone defines a new standard that contradicts current (and popular) implementations.

-- David