Re: draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Thomas,

  We knew about this issue when the draft was coming out of the WG,
  but didn't want to delay it more after way too many years in the
  process--changing the IANA section would need another WG and IETF
  LCs. The agreement was to quickly come up with a short document
  updating just the IANA considerations section in this one. Would
  this be fine?

-- 
Alex

Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 9:22:30 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Question/observation on iana considerations here:

>    Also, sub-Types of a TE Link TLV from 10 to 32767 are to be assigned
>    by Expert Review; values from 32768 through 32772 are reserved for
>    Private Use; and values from 32773 through 65535 are to be assigned
>    First Come First Served.  In all cases, assigned values are to be
>    registered with IANA.

> I'm assuming that from a protocol perspective, there are no semantics
> associated with the actual value of a TLV. I.e, For a given function
> X, the value 259 would work the same as 65534 as far as
> interoperability and such was concerned. But if this is the case, it
> seems somewhat silly to have half the range be under expert review,
> and the other half FCFS. Why would anyone bother with the expert
> review, if they can just ask for the FCFS assignment with no questions
> asked?

> A big point behind of expert review is to be able to say no when it
> makes sense to say no. But saying no has no value when there is the
> obvious way around the 'no'.

> Thomas