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

["Michelle S. Cotton" <cotton@icann.org>]

Hi Alex,

To follow-up on this one...

I'm a bit confused on the IANA Considerations section
for this document.    

It says the following:

   The top level Types in a TE LSA as well as Types for sub-TLVs in a TE
   Link TLV are to be registered with IANA.

   Following the guidelines set in [10], top level Types in TE LSAs from
   3 through 32767 are to be assigned by Expert Review (the said Expert
   to be decided by the IESG).  Types from 32768 through 65535 are
   reserved for Private Use.  In all cases, assigned values Types MUST
   be registered with IANA.

   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 understand this to be a new registry.  I have the same questions as
Thomas did and also question the statement "In all cases, assigned 
values Types MUST be registered with IANA."  Maybe this should not
say "all cases" as I don't think the private use ones are registered
with the IANA.

I did see some follow-up messages to this, I just want to make sure
it is completely clear before it gets approved.  May just be some
small nits.

Thanks,

Michelle
IANA



-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alex
Zinin
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:12 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt


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