Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 IANA policy

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:12:26 -0400

Eric Rosen,

	No, Eric Gray is not quite ready to give up the impossibly
complex idea of requesting IANA to record a reference document.
What in the heck is he thinking of?

	Perhaps it is the idea that people are still largely not
getting: i.e. - that undocumented code point assignments are a
recipe for duplication, and duplication of duplication, and so
on.

	Let's illustrate this with a completely hypothetical (and
probably silly) idea: some vendor (let us call them vendor A)
has the truly inspirational idea of getting a block of 32 pseudo
wire types, one for each signal line in a well-known 32-bit wide 
bus.

	Maybe there's no review requirement, the number space is 
huge and "unlikely to be depleted" and IANA goes ahead and gives
the vendor the assignment.  Or perhaps there is a review, by an
"expert", and today the expert is feeling like this is a great
idea (and, what the hay, the number space is huge and unlikely
to be depleted, anyway) - so IANA gives the vendor the requested
block.

	Some time passes.  Maybe minutes, maybe days or maybe even 
longer.  Maybe some more time passes.

	Along comes a different vendor, who we will call vendor B.
They have the really cool idea of getting a block of 32 pseudo
types - one for each signal line in a well-known 32-bit wide bus.
Maybe they look into assigned numbers and notice that there's a
precedent (it looks like vendor A was able to get a block of type
numbers assigned for their use) and it might even be that the use
intended for that assignment is compatible with vendor B's usage.
But there's no way to tell and - who knows - maybe vendor A will
change the way they use it at some point so that it is no longer
compatible.

	Again, maybe there's no review requirement, or there is and
a different "expert" is asked to review it (perhaps the previous
expert is busy with another review for a block of 32 pseudo wire
type number assignments).  So another block gets assigned.

	Irrespective of the consumption of number space, the problem
is duplication of effort leading to waste and possibly eventually 
to confusion.

	Also, another part of the issue - that applies to undocumented 
assignment (with or without review) - is the essentially arbitrary 
nature of the assignment process.  It is always possible that some
people will come up with good ideas that other people don't like, or
bad ideas that other people do like.  I believe this is worse in the
pseudo-wire case because there's nothing intrinsic in the technology
that would make any one person an obvious expert for all pseudo-wire
applications.

	The best approach to avoid this issue is documentation and peer 
review.  Second best is documentation and after-the-fact peer feedback.
Other approaches are essentially third-rate at best.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [email-masked] 
--> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
--> Eric Rosen
--> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:56 AM
--> To: Yaakov Stein
--> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Mark Townsley;
--> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IANA policy 
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> If the  policy of having  IANA record  a draft name  in the 
--> registry  is too
--> "complicated",  we  should just  return  to  the  goold old 
-->  fashioned  FCFS
--> policy.  Eric  Gray was  the one  really pushing for  this 
--> very  complex and
--> problematic policy, and I'll bet he's ready to give up on it!
--> 
--> Richard> Why not make the whole range FCFS but reserve say 
--> 30% of the values
--> Richard> for 'future use' as an insurance policy?  
--> 
--> I'd say that's an eminently reasonable proposal. 
--> 
--> I think the WG has made it clear that we want a codepoint 
--> allocation process
--> that is not influenced by the opinions of the WG, the IESG, 
--> or its appointed
--> so-called experts.
--> 
--> Unlike Yaakov,  I do not  think it  is realistic to  say 
--> that we'll  have an
--> "expert"  do the  review,  but we'll  require  that he  
--> ignore his  personal
--> opinions  on whether a  particular idea  is good  or not  
--> (or on  whether it
--> benefits his company or not).  Not to mention the timeout issue.  
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> pwe3 mailing list
--> [email-masked]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
--> 

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

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:54:35 +0100

> review. 

Isn't that what Thomas has been saying all along?

- Stewart