[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
- To: "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Subject: FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:40:31 +0100
- Cc: "Bob Braden (E-mail)" <braden@ISI.EDU>
IESG,
Do we have an opinion on this?
Bob Braden suggests we need to prefix assigned names in RSVP
and or LDP namespaces with ITU-T so that people can see they
did not go through "normal IETF" process (not sure this
is 100% correct, they did go through the process for code
point assignment, the technology behind it did not).
My understanding is that initially (when Bob reviewed this
as IANA RSVP expert) that Bob wondered if it were better to
prefix with the function (like ASON or UNI or such) or
with the organisation (Like ITU-T or OIF or ATM).
I am a bit indifferent on this... but if any of us worry
about it, then now is the time to immediately react.
Thanks,
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden@ISI.EDU]
Sent: maandag 27 januari 2003 5:06
To: bwijnen@lucent.com; iana@iana.org; BRaja@tellium.com;
sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; zwlin@lucent.com; osama@nortelnetworks.com
Cc: sob@harvard.edu; braden@ISI.EDU
Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
*> Hi Bert,
*>
*> Yes. It's OK. For the bulk of them that currently does not have a prefix, I prefer to use "ASON_" as the prefix, as these are not UNI specific but actually ASON specific.
*>
*> So, e.g., objects 228, 229, 230 can all be prefixed by "ASON_" if you want.
*>
*> Just as an FYI, if you're distinguishing the ASON from RSVP,
The issue is not distinguishing ASON from RSVP -- that's an apples and
orange comparison. The issue is distinguishing extensions made by
non-IETF standards bodies from those made by the IETF. From the
viewpoint of the IETF, it is sort of a surgeon-general's warning that
this extension has not gone through the normal IETF process.
Maybe ASON is not the right prefix, maybe it should be (?) ITU-T?
Bob Braden
*>
*> Zhi
*>
*>
*> -----Original Message-----
*> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
*> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 5:25 PM
*> To: 'IANA'; Bala Rajagopalan; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)';
*> sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; Zhi-Wei Lin (E-mail); Osama Aboul-Magd (E-mail)
*> Cc: Scott Bradner; Bob Braden (E-mail)
*> Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
*>
*>
*> Michelle, can you check with Bob. Apparently he
*> suggested it. I do remember some email about it.
*>
*> Zhi and Osama... is it still OK with you if we
*> do make such changes? I would hope that Bob or
*> Michelle would first propose in an email what
*> the exact hcanges would be.
*>
*> Thanks,
*> Bert
*>
*> > -----Original Message-----
*> > From: Bala Rajagopalan [mailto:BRaja@tellium.com]
*> > Sent: vrijdag 24 januari 2003 22:34
*> > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Bala Rajagopalan; 'IANA';
*> > sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; Zhi-Wei Lin (E-mail); Osama
*> > Aboul-Magd (E-mail)
*> > Cc: Scott Bradner; Bob Braden (E-mail)
*> > Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
*> >
*> >
*> >
*> > I was just referring to the suggestion made by
*> > Bob Braden about prefixing these assignments so
*> > that it's clear what the assignments refer to.
*> >
*> > In the RSVP assignments, all the objects have a
*> > UNI prefix already (e.g., UNI_IPv4_session, or
*> > Generalized UNI). The error codes may also
*> > be prefixed or marked as UNI in parenthesis.
*> > Similarly, in the LDP case.
*> >
*> > Regards,
*> >
*> > Bala Rajagopalan
*> > Tellium, Inc.
*> > 2 Crescent Pl.
*> > Ocean Port, NJ 07757
*> > USA
*> > Ph: +1-732-923-4237
*> > Email: braja@tellium.com
*> >
*> >
*> > > -----Original Message-----
*> > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
*> > > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:58 PM
*> > > To: Bala Rajagopalan; 'IANA'; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; Zhi-Wei Lin
*> > > (E-mail); Osama Aboul-Magd (E-mail)
*> > > Cc: Scott Bradner; Bert Wijnen; Bob Braden (E-mail)
*> > > Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
*> > >
*> > >
*> > > Bala, can you send exact text w.r.t. the prefixing
*> > > of UNI and ASON... I remember I saw something, but
*> > > let us see exactly what iut would imply and let us
*> > > make sure taht we're all in sync before Michelle
*> > > changes it
*> > >
*> > > Thanks,
*> > > Bert
*> > >
*> > > > -----Original Message-----
*> > > > From: Bala Rajagopalan [mailto:BRaja@tellium.com]
*> > > > Sent: vrijdag 24 januari 2003 20:32
*> > > > To: 'IANA'; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
*> > > > Cc: Scott Bradner; Bert Wijnen
*> > > > Subject: RE: RFC-to-be:
*> > <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
*> > > >
*> > > >
*> > > > Thanks.
*> > > >
*> > > > Bala Rajagopalan
*> > > > Tellium, Inc.
*> > > > 2 Crescent Pl.
*> > > > Ocean Port, NJ 07757
*> > > > USA
*> > > > Ph: +1-732-923-4237
*> > > > Email: braja@tellium.com
*> > > >
*> > > >
*> > > > > -----Original Message-----
*> > > > > From: IANA [mailto:iana@iana.org]
*> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:21 PM
*> > > > > To: Bala Rajagopalan; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
*> > > > > Cc: Scott Bradner; Bert Wijnen
*> > > > > Subject: RE: RFC-to-be:
*> > > <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
*> > > > >
*> > > > >
*> > > > > Bala,
*> > > > >
*> > > > > I have made the appropriate reference changes. It
*> > > > > now reads as follows:
*> > > > >
*> > > > > Error Code Meaning
*> > > > >
*> > > > > 2 Policy Control Failure [RFC2205]
*> > > > >
*> > > > > This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
*> > > > > Value sub-codes:
*> > > > >
*> > > > > 100 = Unauthorized sender
*> > > > > [RFC-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt]
*> > > > > 101 = Unauthorized receiver
*> > > > > [RFC-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt]
*> > > > >
*> > > > > See: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>
*> > > > >
*> > > > > Also, you mentioned following Bob's suggestion. If this
*> > > > > makes the registry more clear I think it's a good idea.
*> > > > > Since the time critical assignments are now in the registry,
*> > > > > we can work on the side to improve the format of the registries.
*> > > > >
*> > > > > Thanks!
*> > > > >
*> > > > > Michelle
*> > > > > IANA
*> > > > >
*> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
*> > > > > > From: Bala Rajagopalan [mailto:BRaja@tellium.com]
*> > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 7:31 AM
*> > > > > > To: 'IANA'; Bala Rajagopalan; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
*> > > > > > Cc: Scott Bradner; Bert Wijnen
*> > > > > > Subject: RE: RFC-to-be:
*> > > > <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > > Michelle,
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > > Thank you very much.
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > > Everything looks fine except for one item.
*> > > > > > Under the RSVP assignments, for Error Code 2,
*> > > > > > Policy Control Failure, you reference RFC draft-bala...
*> > > > > > Actually, my draft only defines the subcodes 100 and 101.
*> > > > > > Error Code 2 itself is defined in RFC 2205. Thus,
*> > > > > > the reference for the main Error code 2 should be RFC 2205
*> > > > > > and not my draft.
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > > Also, looking at the LDP and RSVP assignments, I think
*> > > > > > Bob Braden's suggestion about prefixing these with
*> > > > > > UNI or ASON might bring some clarity.
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > > Regards,
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > > Bala Rajagopalan
*> > > > > > Tellium, Inc.
*> > > > > > 2 Crescent Pl.
*> > > > > > Ocean Port, NJ 07757
*> > > > > > USA
*> > > > > > Ph: +1-732-923-4237
*> > > > > > Email: braja@tellium.com
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > >
*> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
*> > > > > > > From: IANA [mailto:iana@iana.org]
*> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:44 PM
*> > > > > > > To: braja@tellium.com; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
*> > > > > > > Cc: Scott Bradner; Bert Wijnen
*> > > > > > > Subject: RFC-to-be:
*> > > <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > Bala and Steve,
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > The IANA has completed the IANA Actions for
*> > > > > > > RFC-to-be <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>.
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > Please see the following:
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces>
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > and
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > Please look these over and reply back with a
*> > > > > > > final OK that everything looks OK. As soon as
*> > > > > > > we receive your reply we will send a note off to
*> > > > > > > the RFC-Editor indicating the IANA Actions are
*> > > > > > > complete.
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > Note: The assignments have already been reviewed,
*> > > > > > > so everything should already be OK. This note just
*> > > > > > > follows our normal procedures.
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > Thank you!
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > > > Michelle S. Cotton
*> > > > > > > IANA Administrator
*> > > > > > >
*> > > > > >
*> > > > >
*> > > >
*> > >
*> >
*>