Subject: Re: Coming back to the IANA rules update for routing headers

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:37:00 +0300

I would again like to return to this draft. I realize its a small 
matter, but I wouldn't like to hold the draft in this state forever. Can 
we adopt this in the WG and move it forward to an RFC?

Jari

Brian Haberman wrote:
> Jari,
>      As an individual contributor, I am happy with the rules specified 
> in this draft and support adoption by the working group.  I was also 
> unable to find any other RFC or draft that specified the IANA rules 
> for the routing header Type field.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
> Jari Arkko wrote:
>> I spoke about this a little bit in the meeting and got a few 
>> comments. But as far as I can tell, I never got any responses to my 
>> question in March on the mailing list. Perhaps this is a proper time 
>> to ask again... this is really a minor thing, but I would like to fix 
>> a bug in the IANA registries when I see one. Comments and suggestions 
>> would be appreciated.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:42:09 +0200

Jari, I wrote some comments when you first posted the question but 
wouldn't send, doubting its relevance.

Since you re-ask...

I agree assigning routing header types should happen according to a
certain procedure.  I guess IANA is better for this.  And I agree with
the proposal in draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00 which says:
"  New Routing Type values are allocated through IETF Review or IESG
    Approval [RFC5226].

    Note that two experimental values (253 and 254) are already available
    for use [RFC4727]."

Side-issue - there is a metric constant in RIPng rfc2080 which is not
reserved by IANA yet I believe it should.

The document defines valid values for this metric as 0, 1...16 and 0xFF.
  16 is 'infinity' and 0xFF is 'next-hop RTE'.  The other intermediary
values 17-254 don't seem to be used.  The document doesn't have a IANA
section unfortunately.  My problem is that I would like to propose
reservation of 0xFE for a new particular metric.

IANA does reserve RIP Types (not metrics)
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rip-types

Or maybe RIP is no longer that much used, or maybe IANA doesn't need to
reserve these RIP metric numbers, or maybe...

Alex

Jari Arkko a écrit :
>  a bug in the IANA registries when I see one. Comments and
> suggestions would be appreciated.
> 
> Jari Arkko wrote:
>> In the context of reviewing existing IANA registries for various 
>> protocols, we came up with a couple of missing things. The first 
>> issue is that http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters does 
>> not point to RFC 2780 which defines the IANA rules for hop-by-hop 
>> and destination options. This is being fixed by IANA.
>> 
>> The other thing that we noticed was that routing header types do 
>> not appear to have IANA rules. While this is a really small issue, 
>> I like to fix a bug when I see one :-) So, Scott and I wrote a 
>> draft that defines the rules:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header
>> 
>> The new rule requires IETF review before allocation of a new RH 
>> type. We have a couple of questions:
>> 
>> 1) Does anyone know of an RFC where this would have been specified?
>>  Its easy to miss one...
>> 
>> 2) Are people happy with the rule in the draft?
>> 
>> 3) Is the working group interested in adopting this document and 
>> moving it forward?
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email-masked] Administrative 
>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email-masked] Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>