Subject: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:35 +0100

Dear all,

Théo (in copy of this mail) and myself are currently working on an
exciting new extension to the protocol, which Théo will describe in
another mail.  We have just realised that we have a problem: there's no
experimental range in the AE registry.

I therefore propose to reserve the AE range 224-254 for experimental use
in the next revision of rfc6126bis.  Any objections?  Donald, is that okay
at this stage?

Thanks,

-- Juliusz

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:28:48 -0700

That sounds like a very good change to me, I support making it if the WG
agrees.

David

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:54 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>

---

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:59:13 +0100

> That sounds like a very good change to me, I support making it if the WG

No objections from me either :)

-Toke

---

From: Markus Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 21:02:44 +0200

> in the next revision of rfc6126bis.  Any objections?  Donald, is that okay

Sounds like a good idea to me; in general private use / experimental ranges should be in pretty much any protocol to decrease likelihood of prototyping conflicting later on with IANA assignments.

-Markus

---

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:17:47 -0700

no objections, except that I'm dying to learn about what this new
extension is. :)

but I also note, given the present rate of extension additions to
babel, I think it would be over a
hundred years before the various 8 bit spaces was exhausted, and it's
easier to just grab a number with consent from the group and run with
it.

-- 
Make Music, Not War

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-435-0729

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:10 +0100

> no objections, except that I'm dying to learn about what this new

Théophile is working on a write-up.  Be patient :-)

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:08:14 -0400

Hi,

It's a bit of problem to change the rfc6126bis draft at this point except
to resolve IESG requests or to fix typos or the like...

We could  have use the early allocation procedures in RFC 7120 to allocate
AE codepoints except that rfc6126bis does not set up an IANA registry to
those codepoints.

I assume this is in connection with IPv4 over IPv6. The best thing to do it
seems to me would be to have the draft which adds that also set up the IANA
registry and assign the new AE value, assuming one is needed. So, the IANA
Consideration section of the new draft would include something like the
following:

IANA is requested to create a new registry on the IANA "Babel Routing
Protocol" web page as follows:

Registry Name: Babel AE Values

Registration Procedure: Expert Review

References: [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis] [this document]

AE Value  Address Type      Reference

--------  --------------    -----------------------------

    0      Wildcard         [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis]

    1      IPv4             [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis]

    2      IPv6             [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis]

    3      IPv6 link local  [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis]

    4      IPv4 over IPv6   [this document]

   5-255   unassigned       [this document]

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:17 PM Dave Taht <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Sounds like a good idea to me; in general private use / experimental
> ranges should be in pretty much any protocol to decrease likelihood of
> prototyping conflicting later on with IANA assignments.
> >
> > -Markus

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:23 +0100

Hi Donald,

> We could  have use the early allocation procedures in RFC 7120 to allocate AE
> codepoints except that rfc6126bis does not set up an IANA registry to those
> codepoints.

Yes it does.  Please see Section 5 of rfc6126bis:

   IANA is instructed to create a registry called "Babel Address
   Encodings".  The allocation policy for this registry is Specification
   Required.  The values in this registry are as follows:

             +----+-------------------------+---------------+
             | AE | Name                    | Reference     |
             +----+-------------------------+---------------+
             | 0  | Wildcard address        | this document |
             |    |                         |               |
             | 1  | IPv4 address            | this document |
             |    |                         |               |
             | 2  | IPv6 address            | this document |
             |    |                         |               |
             | 3  | Link-local IPv6 address | this document |
             +----+-------------------------+---------------+

What we're suggesting is to add the following entries to that table:

    4-223 -- Unassigned
    224-254 -- Reserved for Experimental Use
    255 -- Unassigned

What I'm asking is -- should we do it now, in the next revision of the
draft, or should we merely establish WG consensus now, with a view to
amending the IANA registry after the RFC is published.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 12:45:58 -0400

Hi Juliusz,

>    Required.  The values in this registry are as follows:

Sorry, I was confused. The rfc6126bis draft takes effect on being move
to the RFC Editor by the managing AD, Martin Vigoureux in this case,
which certifies that it has been approved by the IESG. At that point,
the AE registry would be added to the IANA Babel web page.

>     224-254 -- Reserved for Experimental Use

So, looking t the proposed AE registry in rfc6126bis, I'm surprised it
got through without some reviewer at some level (I missed this also)
complaining that it has no explicit "reserved" value (should probably
be 255) and didn't have a "4-255 unassigned" line although adding such
an unassigned line is the sort of thing commonly done by IANA and the
RFC Editor after draft approval as it is implied by the draft anyway.

> amending the IANA registry after the RFC is published.

I think that as this point we should not make changes in rfc6126bis
that are not needed to get it through the IESG. Just put the revised
registry in the Babel IPv4 over IPv6 draft and for now just use AE=4
if an AE value is needed

Note that, since the AE value assignment criteria is Specification
Required, if rfc6126bis were through the IESG and the IANA Babel AE
registry existed, then as soon as there was a complete Babel IPv4 over
IPv6 draft, even a personal draft before WG adoption, an AE value
could be assigned based on that IPv4 over IPv6 draft as the
specification. (There is a slight complication that an expert
determination that the specification is adequate for interoperability
is needed for Specification Required which might cause a little
delay.)

> -- Juliusz

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 33896 USA
 [email-masked]