Hi, Jon. On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 20:26 +0000, Jon Mitchell (GNS) wrote: > Elwyn - > > Yes, I agree this is a reasonable change to remove all of the > "suggestion" text in the IANA considerations area and will make sure > it is in the next draft if one is required, either way all of that > text will be removed by IANA, who has also just sent back their review > of the actions required. Seems like we are all agreed where things need to go here. Good! > > On your second comment, currently being published as an RFC is a draft > reserving as0 in a similar fashion, so I do think it's most > appropriate as a second doc.. Yeh.. I know, I was also gen-art reviewer for that one. Probably too late to squeeze it in there .. and it wouldn't have been much more sensible there either.
> and I really have trouble tying these reservations to a RFC about > Private ASN's. If no doc is published, the good news is that IANA > has already reserved the last number (with no justification). Again, > if IESG or others feel strongly it should be in this draft, I will try > to work out some text to justify their reservations... Oh, well it looks as if somebody ought to spend a merry evening cobbling together a two section draft to reserve the top number for the sake of completeness. Regards, Elwyn > > Thanks! > > Jon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:12 PM > To: Jon Mitchell (GNS) > Cc: General Area Review Team; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: Gen-art last call review of > draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03 > > On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 15:26 +0000, Jon Mitchell (GNS) wrote: > > Elwyn - > > > > Thanks for your review. > :-) > > > The suggestion is being made to IANA who owns the assignment and was > > discussed at length in the working group with rough consensus. > As specified in the registry, allocations in this registry are either by IETF > Concensus (i.e. a suitable RFC such as this draft is intended to > be) or request from a RIR. Thus it isn't a matter of suggesting to IANA but > telling them what the IETF want done - so this draft should be definitive - > and what you said about WG concensus constitutes the values to be used unless > somebody else in the IETF manages to alter the concensus which seems unlikely. > > > IANA will replace the suggested values into TBDX values below that > > text if IESG approves. This text will not be in the RFC, it's to be > > stricken from the final document by RFC Editor (I was attempting to > > write this text in alignment with Section 5.1 of RFC 5226) . > Yes, that's fine and as expected. > > > > On the final ASN in the range, this is in accordance with like > > reservation of the existing 2 byte Private ASN reservations, where the > > final ASN in that space is not utilized either (except for well-known > > community values). Also, a case was made that code implementations > > tend to have issues with final number usage if using incorrect > > variable types for storage. That said, the small discussion on and > > off list about this resolved that if we wanted to formalize the > > reservation of the last ASN of both the 2 byte space 65535 and the 4 > > byte space 4294967295, probably a separate draft should be constructed > > detailing the logic behind these as they have nothing to do with > > Private ASN's per se and have already been marked as Reserved by IANA > > as you noted. I'm open to IESG direction if we want to take a > > different approach on this... > Publishing a separate draft seems a bit overkill but clearly that's not my > decision. ;-) > > Regards, > Elwyn > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jon > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:15 AM > > To: General Area Review Team > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Gen-art last call review of > > draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03 > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > > may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-03.txt > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > > Review Date: 15 February 2013 > > IETF LC End Date: 22 February 2013 > > IESG Telechat date: (if known) - > > > > Summary: Ready for the IESG. > > > > Nits/editorial comments: The draft is not actually definitive about range > > of values to be allocated - the range in s10 is just a 'suggestion'. Who > > is actually making the decision about the range? > > > > Aside: I noted that the highest possible 32 bit number (4294967295 = > > 0xFFFFFFFF) is excluded from the proposed range. This is marked as > > reserved in the IANA table but AFAICS this reserved item does not have > > a specification associated with the reservation. This document would > > be an opportunity to explicitly mention that the topmost value is > > reserved (for future expansion? :-) ) > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
