Hi Dhruv, Agreed – I know that some of them are already “IETF Review” – my question was mostly about future in general (not directly related to change introduced in this draft).
I was originally thinking about cases like flag field in Metric Object, but even in that case we have 16b reserved field, so no risk there. Regards, Samuel From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2024 2:50 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com> Cc: pce@ietf.org; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> Subject: Re: [Pce] 答复: New draft to update IANA registration policy Hi Samuel, On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 1:28 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com<mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Dhruv, I support change itself. One comment for note/question in the draft: Question to the WG: The current document updates all the registries. Should we keep "Standards Action" for some of them such as flag fields with limited bits? I’m personally not worried about that. We should be able to use same approach as used for LSP object flags. One exception, which I can think of are fixed size objects, which may not be allowing TLVs currently (I’m not sure if there is any specific example in the list of registries). Do we have any specific plan for those? I did a quick manual check. We mostly dont have this problem with one exception of flag fields in sub-objects. Things to note - - there are already some subobjects flag field that are IETF review - some of these have reserved fields that can be easily used - we could extend by creating a new sub-object type if needed Thanks! Dhruv Thanks, Samuel From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn<mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2024 10:17 AM To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] 答复: New draft to update IANA registration policy Hi, Dhruv: Thanks for your quick draft. I think IETF review is enough because the required RFCs needs to be passed all the same stages Although there maybe some different criteria, the related RFCs can assure the interoperability of protocol from different vendors. The document is written clearly. If there is no objection, we can move it faster to be published. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org<mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org> [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Dhruv Dhody 发送时间: 2024年7月23日 5:19 收件人: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> 主题: [Pce] New draft to update IANA registration policy Hi, I have written a small draft to update the registration policy for all "standards action" to "IETF review" for PCEP registry. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iana-update/ The approach that the draft currently takes is to make a blanket change to IETF-review for all "standards action" registry to allow experimental track documents to request allocation. There are some registries where the space is tight but IMHO IETF-review is fine -- our WG and LC process should be enough to handle the case of less bits which ideally require creating a new field/registry as we did in the past for LSP object flags! Thoughts? It might be a good idea to move this quickly as John suggested in his AD review of Native-IP draft [1]. Thanks! Dhruv [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/xBn2_9E9vy6h5AnYEMMf3I9vbqM/
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
