Subject: [Softwires] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:57:46 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-06: No Objection

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-softwire-iftunnel/

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

I agree with Tom Petch that adding "tunnelType Registry" or "tunnelType
Definitions" more prominently on the IANA website is advisable.

On a more general note, it's pretty weird to me to go and create a
registry with a fairly long list of initial population but then claim
that it is not intended to be complete and should be supplemented by
additional registrations for existing protocols.  Either it should be
complete, or we can just have a small sample of initial registrations to
"get a feel" for what they look like and what needs to be included.
Then, most registrations would be done as standalone registrations and
it would not feel like the outliers were getting rejected.

Appendix A

The example module's namespace was not changed to reflect the move away
from ietf-*.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 05:14:22 +0000

Hi Ben, 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 12 juin 2019 21:58
> À : The IESG
> Cc : [email-masked]; Yong Cui; softwire-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-06:
> (with COMMENT)
> 

[Med] I agree but I didn't include any note into this I-D because this is the kind of clarification that is better covered in draft-thaler-iftype-reg (to be sponsored by Suresh).

> On a more general note, it's pretty weird to me to go and create a

[Med] There is a disconnect here. This I-D is not creating a new registry, it is mirroring an existing one. 

> The example module's namespace was not changed to reflect the move away

Med] Will be updated.