Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 IANA policy

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:09:01 -0400

Thomas,

	So, you would allocate half of the available space to
a deliberate and organized process and the other half to a 
free-for-all?  Isn't that - by itself - an illustration of
the "arbitrary" nature of this particular beast?

	As for the expert's noticing that the space is getting
depleted, what does that imply?  Does the process change, or 
does the allocation of the range change?  If the process is
what we change, do we have early assignments to commemorate 
Grandma's apple pie recipe that result in denial of later 
assignments for a real application because of competition
for space?

	Besides, your observation that you "see nothing wrong 
with having a range that is clearly marked "IETF reviewed and 
approved" and a different  range for "Vendor specific" looks
like a generalization and I was responding to it as such. The
fact that we have what appears to be a large space in this
case does not mean we can make general statements that might
be interpretted as applying to other situations.

	Finally, as has been pointed out in this discussion
before, the track-record of the IETF is no less replete with
examples of incorrect assumptions about the adequacy of the
size of a given number space than is the track record of any 
other group.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
--> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:52 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: [email-masked]; W. Mark Townsley; Stewart Bryant; pwe3; Danny
--> McPherson
--> Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IANA policy 
--> 
--> 
--> Eric,
--> 
--> > 	One reason to object to ranges is that the allocation is
--> > necessarily arbitrary.  This means that it's possible for part 
--> > of the entire range to be depleted prematurely,
--> 
--> Um, aren't we talking about ranges that are rather large, like 16
--> bits? E.g., pseudowire types are 15 bits. And if half of 
--> the space is
--> reserved for Expert review, presumably the reviewing criteria would
--> notice that they were in scarce supply should that ever 
--> become a real
--> issue (not that I think that would happen with 14 bits...)
--> 
--> Thomas
--> 

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:41:48 -0400

Eric,

> the "arbitrary" nature of this particular beast?

No, I wouldn't. But other folks seem to be arguing for this. Indeed,
some seem to say "make it all a big free-for-all".

What I (personally) would do (for pseudowires) is have just one range,
and make have code points be allocated via Expert Review.

Moreover, to reduce the potential for abuse, I'd  put into the
document something like:

  Pseudowire types are allocated under Expert Review. The expert
  review process is intended to ensure that any new pseudowire type
  definitions are consistent with the general PWE3 architecture and
  are compatable with and do not cause interoperability problems with
  the existing PWE3 standards and deployed implementations [cite the
  relevant RFCs]. Requests for assignment of pseudwire types are to be
  reviewed in the PWE3 WG, its mailing list (once the WG closes) or
  other community of experts that continues to follow the PWE3
  technology if at all possible. It is not the intention of the expert
  review process to block code point assignments in cases other than
  those listed above.
  
But, if the above isn't acceptable, and some FCFS assignments are
desirable, I'd insist that a special range be set up to make clear
that they are unreviewed vendor extensions, and are not blessed by the
IETF in any way. This is simple truth-in-advertising.

It is a fact today that marketeers are loose with facts and like to
claim (or suggest) something is a standard when it is not. Having a
separate range of code points for unreviewed extensions makes it
easier to point to such uses as being not approved by the IETF.

In people continue to insist that FCFS is needed, I'd say something
like:

  There are two psuedowire types. The range of 0-31744 is reserved for
  IETF Approved types and are assigned through Expert Review. [include
  above text about type of review here]. The range 31745-32767 (a
  total of 1024 values) is reserved for vendor extensions and is
  assigned through FCFS.

> assignments for a real application because of competition

In this case, the discussion is academic. If we really come close to
using up the 15-bit type space, we've almost certainly been subsumed
by events... 

> like a generalization and I was responding to it as such.

It is a generalization, but one based on my experience with having
seen other groups "extend" IETF protocols and then having those
extensions become viewed as IETF-blessed. If you are going to allow
unreviewed extensions, clearly labeling them as unreviewed is
useful. It is (an admitedly small) stick to wave at folk that claim
that their extension is an IETF approved one. This case is much harder
to make when there is no clearly identifiable vendor-specific block.

> The

In this case, my generalization has nothing to do with the size of the
space.

> size of a given number space than is the track record of any 

Yep!

Thomas