Hi Benoit, This came up in the IESG meeting earlier today along with folks from IANA.
The solution we came up with is for IANA to list the three drafts, RFC 5102, RFC 7012, and draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh (when it is approved) in the IANA registry for the IEs that are being either deprecated or added. In addition, IANA should declare on the top of the registry (if it does not already), that it is the authoritative source for the registry. Having agreed upon, one has to say that RFC 7012 should have never delegated the authority of the registry to the registry. It is odd that the registry is the authoritative source for itself. But what is done cannot be undone, and we are going to have to live with it. Cheers. > On Jul 12, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Dear all, > > It goes without saying that I agree with Med here. > > Regards, Benoit > > On 7/11/2024 7:58 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> An implementer that looks in 5102 will be forwarded to 7012 because there is >> appropriate metadata in 5102 that says that spec is superseded/obsoleted by >> 7012. Like any other RFC with that metadata, there is no note that explicits >> which aspects is obsoleted (or updated in case of updated-by). Readers have >> to look into 7012 which clearly and explicitly list the changes and how the >> registry should be handled in the future. >> >> I never saw an update to an obsoleted RFC. IMO, it does not make sense to go >> that way. >> >> We can add a note with a summary to help readers navigate with all these. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >> De : Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> >> <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> >> Envoyé : jeudi 11 juillet 2024 18:27 >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> >> <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> >> Cc : Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io> <mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>; >> The IESG <i...@ietf.org> <mailto:i...@ietf.org>; >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v...@ietf.org >> <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v...@ietf.org>; opsawg-chairs >> <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> <mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org >> <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> >> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG]Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17: (with DISCUSS) >> >> >> Hi Med, >> >> This DISCUSS and the COMMENT from John came up again in the telechat earlier >> today. >> >> This is clearly tripped up more than one person in their review process, so >> it is quite imaginable what it would do to an implementor. I do not have a >> good solution, and I am hoping this discussion comes up with a solution that >> is better than status quo. >> >> >> On Jul 10, 2024, at 11:14 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com >> <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> I have already clarified this point in a reply to John's comment. >> >> Let me clarify again: >> >> * Both ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions were initially defined in RFC 5102 >> * RFC 7012 obsoleted RFC 5102 and declared that: >> >> ## The IANA registry is for now the authoritative reference for these IEs: >> >> "[IANA-IPFIX] is now the normative reference for IPFIX Information >> Elements. When [RFC5102] was published, it defined, in its >> Section 5, the initial contents of that registry." >> >> ## RFC 5102 provides the initial content of the registry >> >> "This information model is maintained as the IANA "IPFIX >> Information Elements" registry, the initial contents of which were >> defined by RFC 5102." >> >> or >> >> "The IANA "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [IANA-IPFIX] is the >> current complete reference for IPFIX Information Elements. The >> initial values for this registry were provided by [RFC5102]." >> >> The move to an IANA registry as the authoritative reference for the IEs is >> clearly the source of the problem. Is there something in the Updates to RFC >> 5102 that indicates that the registry has moved to IANA? Or do folks have to >> read RFC 7012 to realize that? Would the registry pointing to RFC 5102, >> which would in turn point to RFC 7012 help? >> >> >> >> * We can't update 7012 because: >> >> "Information Element definitions have been removed, as the reference >> for these is now [IANA-IPFIX]; a historical note on categorizations >> of Information Elements as defined in [RFC5102] has been retained >> in Section 5." >> >> This is the reason we: >> >> * cite [IANA-IPFIX] when we first mentioned ipv6ExtensionHeaders and >> tcpOptions in the doc. >> * list [IANA-IPFIX] as normative >> >> But that may not be enough to satisfy the question that Paul is asking. >> Which RFC is being updated/obsoleted with the move to deprecate the >> ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions IE. Does it make sense to update RFC >> 5102 so folks know to reference this document, even if it is obsoleted by >> RFC 7102? >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >> >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org >> <mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> >> Envoyé : jeudi 11 juillet 2024 03:48 >> À : The IESG <i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>> >> Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v...@ietf.org >> <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v...@ietf.org>; opsawg- >> cha...@ietf.org <mailto:cha...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org >> <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; thomas.g...@swisscom.com >> <mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>; >> thomas.g...@swisscom.com <mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com> >> Objet : Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo- >> v6eh-17: (with DISCUSS) >> >> >> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to >> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free >> to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> This specification deprecates the ipv6ExtensionHeaders >> IPFIX IE >> in favor of the new IEs defined in this document. >> >> I don't see which RFC those were in, because this document does >> not >> Update: or Obsolete: the RFC that defined the >> ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE >> >> >> This specification deprecates the tcpOptions IE >> >> Same here. >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou >> falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >> delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >> modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> Mahesh Jethanandani >> mjethanand...@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou >> falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >> delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >> modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
