Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 08:42:18 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures
        Author          : John Scudder
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-01.txt
	Pages           : 4
	Date            : 2018-11-12

Abstract:
   This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration
   procedures for BGP Capability Codes.  Specifically, the range
   formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three
   new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served",
   "Experimental" and "Reserved".

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:44:49 +0000

Hi All,

This version adds registrations for capabilities 128 and 130 (marked "deprecated") in response to the point raised by Martin and later discussed with a few of you. I've also done a little cleanup, especially in the IANA section, with an eye toward making the document WGLC-ready -- in fact, I do think it's ready.

One open question is whether we should also register 129 as reported by Shyam yesterday. Since he indicated that code never shipped, I'm OK with leaving it unallocated -- if we started fencing off every code point anyone had ever #define'd and not proceeded with, I bet we'd have a lot of work ahead of us. :-) But the question is open for discussion.

Thanks,

--John

> On Nov 12, 2018, at 11:42 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
...

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:02:36 +0000

John Scudder wrote on 12/11/2018 16:44:
> Since he indicated that code never shipped, I'm OK with leaving it unallocated

wfm.  There's no real reason to mark something as allocated if it's not 
been seen in the wild.

Nick