Eric, OMNI already has UDP port number but it also needs 1) an IP protocol
number,
2) an IEEE Ethernet EtherType and 3) an IPv6 ND option number. These are the
same
things SCHC is asking for (minus the IPv6 ND), and to hear Bob describe it
sounds like
for the same or very similar reasons. Which makes me wonder whether providing a
full IETF blessing for SCHC now puts AERO/OMNI at a competitive disadvantage?
Or,
if the IETF is willing to extend the same codepoint allocation graces to
AERO/OMNI
now then that would address the concern.
The OMNI draft has a properly-formed IANA considerations where the necessary
codepoint allocations are requested. Does it need to be broken out into a small
companion draft the way SCHC did it?
Fred
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>; Juan Carlos Zuniga
(juzuniga) <juzuniga=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Next steps for
draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00
EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
Fred,
IANA has enough code points for SCHC over IP/Ethernet/UDP and for OMNI (NDP
code point if I remember correctly). I.e., this not one or the other. And SCHC
early allocation (if any) won't block/prevent any other allocations.
Moreover, per RFC 7120 section 2 point d)
d. The Working Group chairs and Area Directors (ADs) judge that
there is sufficient interest in the community for early (pre-RFC)
implementation and deployment, or that failure to make an early
allocation might lead to contention for the code point in the
field.
I.e., early allocation will be done for adopted documents where there is a
clear interest.
Hope this clarifies
Regards,
-éric
From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org>> on
behalf of "Templin (US), Fred L"
<fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 9 November 2022 at 16:11
To: "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)"
<juzuniga=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:juzuniga=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
"int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>"
<int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Next steps for
draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00
I want to understand whether granting these allocations for SCHC would prevent
OMNI from receiving exactly the same three allocation types. If so, then we need
to ask the question of whether the codepoints should go to SCHC or OMNI. In my
view, OMNI should get the codepoints.
Fred
From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org>> On
Behalf Of Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 8:07 AM
To: int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Int-area] Next steps for
draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00
EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
Hi IntArea WG,
Today we had an interesting discussion about the future of
draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00.
We would like to ask Bob Moskowitz et al. to upload a revised I-D with the text
about the EtherType and UDP port numbers.
Once we have that draft published, we will re-confirm our call for adoption,
and then we will proceed to coordinate with tsvwg as discussed.
Best,
Juan-Carlos & Wassim
(IntArea chairs)
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
