BOUNCE ccamp@ops.ietf.org: Non-member submission from [The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>]

[owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]

>From amyk@cnri.reston.va.us Mon Jan 19 23:37:40 2004
Received: from [132.151.1.176] (helo=ietf.org)
	by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD)
	id 1Aiixf-000PR6-IC
	for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:37:39 +0000
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16365;
	Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:37:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200401192337.SAA16365@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce: ;
From: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Short Last Call: IANA allocations for
         ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:37:35 -0500
Sender: amyk@cnri.reston.va.us
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on
	psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=2.61


The IESG is considering the situation with IANA allocation of the RSVP
FLOWSPEC and SENDER_TSPEC C-Types for ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh that
has been recently approved by the IESG for publication as an RFC.

While the long-term measures to prevent similar situations in future
are being discussed, the issue at hand needs to be quickly resolved.
The proposed solution is to change the assignment of the above C-Types
from value 3 (currently assigned by IANA) to 4, and mark value 3 as
"reserved".

The IESG would like to solicit comments on the proposed solution from
the community. More details are given below. Please send your comments
by January 22nd, 2004.

Description of the situation with IANA assignments for
ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh:

1. After the approval of the document by the IESG, an IANA action has
   been performed for the document, in which IANA correctly picked the
   next available C-Type value (3) in the FLOWSPEC and SENDER_TSPEC
   ranges and assigned it to the document.

2. However, the CCAMP WG has been informed that value 3 is being used
   by implementations of an another (expired) Internet draft that
   also picked next available value in the same ranges. Because the
   draft never progressed, these values have never been formally
   allocated by IANA within the RSVP registry.

3. Because implementations of the expired Internet draft have been
   deployed, assigning value 3 to ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh would
   create interoperability problems.

4. An implementation survey performed in the CCAMP WG showed that
   most early implementations of ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh use
   value 4, and those few that use the IANA-assigned value 3 would
   be willing to change it to 4 to avoid interoperability problems.