Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 IANA policy - rough consesnus

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:22 +0100

It is clear that we cannot get the unanimous agreement
of the PWE3 WG on the IANA policy issue.

In order to move forward the chairs need to make a call
on the rough consensus.

Taking into account all of the views that have been
expressed we think that the following is the appropriate
policy:

    0-1024    Expert review
1025-4096    Reserved
4097-        Proprietary - Allocated FCFS by IANA

- Stewart/Danny

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:00:59 -0600

Stewart,
Please see comments inline .
Thanks.
Luca

> 4097-        Proprietary - Allocated FCFS by IANA

Proprietary ? this means Vendor proprietary ? right ?

Also should I divide the other registries ranges in roughly the same 3 
sections ?
the following are the new registries and proposed ranges :
"Pseudo wire Type" 0 =reserved , 1 to 1024 expert review, 1025-4096 
reserved, 4097 to 32767 FCFS Vendor proprietary. 32768 reserved.

"Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type"  0=reserved , 1 to 127 expert 
review, 128 to 192 reserved, 192 to 254 FCFS Vendor Proprietary, 255 
reserved.

  "Attachment Individual Identifier Type" and "Attachment Group 
Identifier (AGI) Type" same as "Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type"

"Pseudo Wire Status" has not been discussed , and is a small field ...
so we would have 0 to 16 expert , 16 to 23 reserved , 23 to 31 fcfs 
vendor proprietary ....

Is this the detailed WG consensus ?

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:01:21 -0400

> 4097- Proprietary - Allocated FCFS by IANA

Please remove the word "proprietary".  There is no reason why a codepoint in
this range would not  be used in a standard.  There is  also no reason why a
codepoint allocated via expert review would not be proprietary (i.e., single
vendor, non-standard).

---

From: Eric W Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:12:26 -0400

I agree with Eric Rosen on this point.  In addition to not necessarily 
being an appropriate
distinction, the word "Proprietary" adds no semantic value given the 
number of  instances
of ideas created by a single individual or organization that 
subsequently become defacto
standards and the fact that "Proprietary" does not distinguish 
individual/organization types.

--
Eric G

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:12:10 +0200

How about (proposed by Thomas earlier):

"reserved for vendor extensions"

I believe IANA knows how to distinguish between a vendor request and a
non-vendor request.

- Mark