Subject: [lisp] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-04: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:30:21 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-04: 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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 4.1

"The value 15 is reserved for Experimental Use [RFC5226]"

I don't think this document should be reserving value 15 for Experimental
use based on its stated intentions "a LISP shared message type for
defining future extensions and conducting experiments".

RFC3692 defines the experimental values as 

"  Mutually consenting devices could use
   these numbers for whatever purposes they desire, but under the
   understanding that they are reserved for generic testing purposes,
   and other implementations may use the same numbers for different
   experimental uses."

which means that devices may use any of the sub-types under 15 for
experimentation and potentially collide with the "extension" uses.

I would propose that a sub range of the sub-types (e.g. 2048-4095) under
type 15 be reserved for experimentation and the rest of the range
(0-2047) for extensions be specified using some other IANA policy (e.g.
FCFS as specified in the document).

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:57:26 +0000

Hi Suressh, 

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 1 février 2017 22:30
> À : The IESG
> Cc : [email-masked]; Luigi Iannone; lisp-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-04: (with
> DISCUSS)
> 

[Med] As discussed with Alvaro and Ben, that sentence was already removed from my local copy.  

> experimentation and potentially collide with the "extension" uses.

[Med] ...but this draft says that the sub-type is to be registered with IANA. The registration procedure reduces the collision probability. Authors of extensions are aware of that risk: they should not squat an already registered value, they are invited to register their value, and IANA will notify them if a duplicate value is already present in the registry. The use of FCFS is meant to facilitate the assignment of codepoints and encourage authors to declare their extensions without requiring heavy and procedures. 

We may be tempted to define a range for "Private Use" too, but we didn't done that to avoid interop issues that may arise from code that is not intended to be tested in environments other than closed one. 

> FCFS as specified in the document).
[Med] FWIW, I already agreed with Alvaro to make the following change:
0-1023: Standards Action
1024-4095: FCFS

Wouldn't that be sufficient? 

Thank you.