RE: IANA assignments

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> I hope you also realize that it was pointed out that OIF has assumed
> the assigned value of 3 (probably because IANA had assigned it and
> published it on the iana web pages... Adrian has asked the question
> if it is indeed so or not). So if IANA changes it, it may be perceived
> by outside world as a weakness. Not sure it is.. but we should check
> (or so I think... IANA pls let us know what you think about this).

I do realize that.

The priority here is simple: the *IETF* has asked IANA for assignment
of a code point; the most reasonable value of that code point *based
on implementations of the IETF draft/RFC* is 4.  The OIF is *not* a
standards organization; for the IETF to change what is the right
decision based on premature actions of the OIF is a sign of weakness.
In any case, 'signs of weakness' should NOT be our guiding principle
-- we should do what is right and reasonable.

BTW, to put this in perspective, OIF UNI1.0 uses a code point value
of 4.  If the value of 3 was 'approved' by the OIF for UNI1.0r2, it
seems to me that the OIF really jumped the gun: the RFC has not been
published and discussion of code point assignments is not complete.
Perhaps the OIF can approve (as soon as we complete the discussion and
reach the right conclusion) UNI1.0r3 with the correct value.  Note
that many participants in the CCAMP mailing list have implemented OIF
UNI1.0, and I have not heard that we should change the value to 3; in
fact, Tellabs' own implementation uses 4 today.

I stand by my recommendation that IANA assign a value of 4 for the
SDH/SONET C-Types for FLOWSPEC and TSPEC.

Kireeti.
-------