Subject: [manet] DLEP-15: IANA Considerations (mechanics)

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:55:29 -0400

All,

This note is focused on the mechanics of the
IANA Considerations section, rather than about
WG choices about the actual contents of the
to-be-created DLEP IANA registries.

1) Basic contents for “IANA Considerations”

The basic task is to specify each new registry,
specify allocation policies, and specify initial
values arising from this document (if any).

All of Section 12 needs to comply with RFC-5226
and should cite RFC-5226 when using reserved phrases
or reserved words defined within RFC-5226.

At present, I do not believe that DLEP-15 is
fully compliant with RFC-5226.

  A) Each new registry deserves its own sub-section.
     Each new registry needs to have the registry
     name specified.  It is helpful (and I believe also customary) 
     to include the protocol as the first term of the formal 
     name of the registry to help users of the IANA registry
     find the then-current assigned values.  This also makes
     crystal clear that a given registry is associated with
     DLEP rather than some other protocol.

     Example edit:

	"12.3  DLEP Signal Type and Message Type Registry”

        DLEP Signals and DLEP Messages share a common option
	Type number space.  This registry defines all of the
	DLEP Signal Type and DLEP Message Type numbers."

  B) Initial values allocated by this document need
     to be specified within each newly created 
     IANA registry sub-section.  It is not kind to make
     the IANA folks hunt all over a document to find
     initial registry values.

     Example edit for Section 12.3:
	(Insert/copy current Table 1 into Section 12.3.)

  C) Each new registry needs to have its IANA
     allocation policies defined, using the
     proper language from RFC-5226.

     Creativity in specifying an allocation policy 
     is at least strongly discouraged and might be
     disallowed. 

     Example edit for Section 12.3 (for some value N;
     I’d like to discuss values for N separately from
     this note which is purely about the structure and
     contents of the IANA Considerations):

	Values 1-16 are defined elsewhere in this document.
        Values 17-N are to be allocated under the IANA 
        “Specification Required” allocation policy from 
        Section 4.1 of [RFC5226], while Values N-65534 are 
        reserved for “Private Use” as defined by Section 4.1 
        of RFC5226.”

I believe that the same kind of edits are needed *throughout*
Section 12 “IANA Considerations”.

2) In Section 8.0, page 20, the existing Table-1 is labelled
   “The core DLEP signals and messages are” but actually
   contains various values that are NOT actually “core DLEP
   signals and messages”.  

   Requested Action: Edit this instance of Table 1 to remove
   the rows corresponding to any Type Code value that is NOT
   considered “core DLEP”.

3) In Section 9.0, pages 32 & 33, the existing Table-2 is
   labelled “The core DLEP data items are” but the table 
   actually contains various values that are NOT actually
   “core DLEP data items”.

   Requested Action: Edit this instance of Table 2 to remove
   the rows corresponding to any Type Code value that is NOT
   considered “core DLEP”.  I would suggest copying the current
   Table 2 into Section 12.4 prior to making the edit here in
   Section 9.

4) In Section 9.1, page 35, please copy Table 3 into Section 12.5.

5) Please add normative citation of [RFC5226].

Yours,

Ran Atkinson

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:25:20 -0400

ISSUE:
  In re-reading sub-section 12.8 on DLEP Multicast Addressing
within "IANA Considerations”, there seem to be 2 issues.

	(A) Existing text does not specify which multicast
	    address block the allocation ought to come from.
	    From list discussion, and from similar existing
	    practice (e.g. OSPFv2, RIPv2), it seems clear 
	    that a link-local/non-routed multicast address
	    is desired, but the DLEP-15 text is not clear.

	(B) Existing text is ambiguous and does not clarify
	    whether an IPv4 address, and IPv6 address, or
	    both is being requested.  From the context of
 	    the rest of DLEP-15, it seems clear that both
	    are needed.

Requested Action:
	Update DLEP-15++, Section 12.8, to specifically ask
	that the DLEP Multicast address come from the IPv4
	Local Network Control Block.  Also, clarify that DLEP
	will need both 1 IPv4 multicast address and 1 IPv6
	multicast address.

	Candidate New Text for 12.8:

		It is requested that IANA allocate 1 IPv4 multicast
		address from the IPv4 Local Network Control Block
		(i.e. 224.0.0.0/24) for DLEP use.

		It also is requested that IANA allocate 1 permanent
		IPv6 multicast address from the IPv6 Link-Local Scope
		Multicast Address Block for DLEP use.  The procedure
		described in Section 4.1 of RFC-3307 appears to
		be relevant to this request.

Yours,

Ran Atkinson

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:29:16 -0400

ISSUE:
	DLEP-15, Section 12.7, requests that IANA allocate a
	well-known port for DLEP use.

	The current request is not a sufficiently clear/precise.
	DLEP needs to have both a UDP and TCP port allocated, 
	but DLEP does not use SCTP and so does not require an SCTP port.

Requested Action:

	The text in Section 12.7 should be edited for clarity.

	Candidate New Text:

	“It is requested that IANA allocate DLEP a well-known
	 TCP port and also a well-known UDP port.  Ideally,
	 these port numbers will be the same.  Since DLEP does
	 not use SCTP, an SCTP port need not be allocated.”

Yours,

Ran

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:31:42 +0200

Hi,

I don't think DLEP needs a well known TCP port, because it tells its
local TCP-port over UDP to the other side.

So all we need is a well known UDP port on the radio to receive the
routers UDP multicast.

The router needs no well known port at all.

Henning Rogge

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:29 PM, RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:51:54 -0400

> On 14  Jul 2015, at 09:31 , Henning Rogge <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

OK.  

That clarification changes HOW DLEP-15, Section 12.7, would be edited,
but a clarifying edit (e.g. well-known UDP port is requested,
but DLEP does not need well-known TCP or SCTP ports) is still 
needed to the existing text.

Thanks,

Ran