Subject: [Idr] Martin Vigoureux's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 16:22:35 -0800

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-03: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry/

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

Hi,

Thank you for your work.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why doesn't this document update 8955
just like it updates 7153? I'm asking because your document modifies the
allocation policy of the 0x80-0x8F range, as well as the names of 0x80, 0x81,
0x82 (and of their sub-types registries), and at the same time it seems to me
that 7153 covers the allocation policy of the 0x80-0x8F range but only 0x80
(and its sub-type registry), while it's 8955 which seems to cover 0x81 and 0x82
(and their sub-types registries).

Thank you

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

s/is requested update/is requested to update/

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 08:29:50 -0800

On November 18, 2021 at 7:22:36 PM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:

Martin:

Hi!

Thanks for the review!

> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why doesn't this document update
> 8955 just like it updates 7153? I'm asking because your document modifies the
> (and its sub-type registry), while it's 8955 which seems to cover 0x81 and
> 0x82 (and their sub-types registries).

rfc8955 inherited the references to the registries by Obsoleting
rfc7674 and rfc5575.  I didn't think at the time that we needed an
Update, but I see your point and have no objection to adding rfc8955
to the Updated list.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Christoph Loibl <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 11:07:34 +0100

Martin, Alvaro!

Thank you for your review.

According to your conversation I suggest the following changes to the document. (If there are no objections I will upload a -04 tomorrow)

Cheers Christoph.

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 1:
OLD:

 IDR Working Group                                               C. Loibl
 Internet-Draft                                   next layer Telekom GmbH
 Updates: 7153 (if approved)                              13 October 2021
 Intended status: Standards Track
 Expires: 16 April 2022

NEW:

 IDR Working Group                                               C. Loibl
 Internet-Draft                                   next layer Telekom GmbH
 Updates: 7153 8955 (if approved)                        22 November 2021
 Intended status: Standards Track
 Expires: 26 May 2022

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 5:
OLD:

    This document updates RFC7153.

NEW:

    This document updates RFC7153 and RFC8955.

Section 1., paragraph 2:
OLD:

    Section 2 of this document requests the registry cleanup to reflect
    the actual use of those code-points (removing "Experimental Use" from
    the sub-type registry names) and changes the registration procedure
    of the types 0x80, 0x81, 0x82 to use the First Come First Served
    policy [RFC8126] and thus updates [RFC7153].

NEW:

    Section 2 of this document requests the registry cleanup to reflect
    the actual use of those code-points (removing "Experimental Use" from
    the sub-type registry names) and changes the registration procedure
    of the types 0x80, 0x81, 0x82 to use the First Come First Served
    policy [RFC8126] and thus updates [RFC7153] and [RFC8955].

-- 
Christoph Loibl
[email-masked] | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at

> On 19.11.2021, at 17:29, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:57:45 -0800

Christoph:

Hi!

This works for me.  Martin has the DISCUSS, so it is his decision.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On November 22, 2021 at 5:07:40 AM, Christoph Loibl ([email-masked]) wrote:

Martin, Alvaro!

According to your conversation I suggest the following changes to the
document. (If there are no objections I will upload a -04 tomorrow)

Cheers Christoph.

NEW:

OLD:

NEW:

Section 1., paragraph 2:
OLD:

NEW:

Martin:

Hi!

Thanks for the review!

Hi,

Thank you for your work.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why doesn't this document update
8955 just like it updates 7153? I'm asking because your document modifies
the
allocation policy of the 0x80-0x8F range, as well as the names of 0x80,
0x81,
0x82 (and of their sub-types registries), and at the same time it seems to
me
that 7153 covers the allocation policy of the 0x80-0x8F range but only 0x80
(and its sub-type registry), while it's 8955 which seems to cover 0x81 and
0x82 (and their sub-types registries).

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Christoph Loibl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:33:47 +0100

Martin,

I uploaded a -04 of this draft that now also updates RFC 8955.  

This new version also resolves your grammar COMMENT.

Cheers Christoph

> On 22.11.2021, at 18:57, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Christoph:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> On November 22, 2021 at 5:07:40 AM, Christoph Loibl ([email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>) wrote:
> 
>> Martin, Alvaro!
>> 
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at <http://www.nextlayer.at/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 19.11.2021, at 17:29, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>>

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 15:19:15 +0100

Christoph,

thank you very much. I've cleared my DISCUSS.

-m

Le 2021-11-23 à 12:33, Christoph Loibl a écrit :
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | 
> http://www.nextlayer.at
> 
> 
> 
>> On 22.11.2021, at 18:57, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>> Christoph:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | 
>>> http://www.nextlayer.at <http://www.nextlayer.at/>
>>>
>>>
>>>