From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: 30 July 2024 04:32 Hi Tom,
On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 5:03 AM tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: Where it says 'This updates | Wavelength | [RFC8780] | | | Restriction | | | | Constraint TLV | | | | Action Values ' Is this the "Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values" subregistry ] of RFC8780? In the IANA page it is called "Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV Action Values" https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#wavelength-restriction-constraint-tlv-action-values RFC 8780 uses "Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values" https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8780.html#section-8.5 With a little digging I found that the keyword "Constraint" was dropped from the TLV name during AUTH48 but the iana was not updated. Let me take action on fixing this. Thanks for spotting it! <tp> My preference is for the RFC to be taken as gospel, as the correct not-to-be changed value. My reason is a simple engineering one. There is a mechanism for flagging changes to an RFC, errata, but it is a clumsy one, hard to use to find errata and may be missed. IANA by conrast have a good track record of keeping their online information up-to-date and accurate and so for me would handle any change in a way that is less likely to go wrong in future. So get IANA to handle it, not the RFC system. Tom Petch Thanks! Dhruv Tom Petch ________________________________________ From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn<mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>> Sent: 25 July 2024 09:16 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<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
