Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-03.txt> (Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:16:05 -0800

The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New
   Registry'
  <draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-03.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2014-01-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated
   Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-ACh.
   However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been
   distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries.
   This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel
   (G-ACh) Parameters" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching
   Architecture (MPLS)" heading.  This document updates RFC 5586.

   This document also updates RFC 6374, RFC 6428, RFC 6378, RFC 6427,
   RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, and RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 17:13:54 +0000

Thank you for your review! Pleas see inline.

On Jan 5, 2014, at 3:11 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
> At 07:16 02-01-2014, The IESG wrote:
> From the Introduction section:
> 
>  'RFC 5586 generalized the PW-ACH into the G-ACh.  However, registries
>   and allocations of G-ACh namespaces had been distributed throughout
>   different registries.  This document coalesces these into a new
>   "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry in the
>   "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" name space.  This
>   is an update to RFC RFC 5586 [RFC5586].'
> 
> The draft is about IANA actions.  I don't see why the document is being considered as a Proposed Standard.  In Section 3 it is mentioned that the updates RFC 5586 by renaming the Pseudowire Associated Channel Types.   That may be related to the IANA Considerations section in RFC 5586.  As there isn't any text in the draft suggesting that the requirements in RFC 5586 are impacted by this update I conclude that this draft does not change the technical part of RFC 5586.
> 

Two main reasons for progressing this draft as PS:
1. This document modifies IANA registries that have "Standards Action" as the registration procedures, and consequently we need a Standards Track RFC approved by the IESG.
2. As you note, this document also intends to update RFC 5586, PS, as well as 6 other Std-Track RFCs. We are not dissecting which section of RFC 5586 is PS and which one might not be. We consider that the IANA actions *are* part of the requirements of RFC 5586, and integral part of the protocol. Yes, no RFC 5586 procedures are impacted, only the IANA actions.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 00:11:47 -0800

Hello,

The draft is about IANA actions.  I don't see why the document is 
being considered as a Proposed Standard.  In Section 3 it is 
mentioned that the updates RFC 5586 by renaming the Pseudowire 
Associated Channel Types.   That may be related to the IANA 
Considerations section in RFC 5586.  As there isn't any text in the 
draft suggesting that the requirements in RFC 5586 are impacted by 
this update I conclude that this draft does not change the technical 
part of RFC 5586.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy