Subject: Re: [Idr] AFI IANA Considerations

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:28:11 -0800

>It might be worthwhile to indicate that FCFS is intended to be
>temporary until sufficient implementation and deployment existed to
>justify standards-track (with the possibility of "large values of
>temporary").

One of the big problems that we've run into with having different
classes of numbers is that it introduces interoperatbility problems when
there are two different numbers to indicate the same thing.

RFC 4020 describes a procedure which gets the WG involved in allowing
Standards Action code points to be assigned to a document that is
progressing in the WG.  This is the procedure that got AS_PATHLIMIT
a path attribute while it's still an I-D.

If it's valuable to limit assignments to "things that will eventually
be published as standards track", as I think you're advocating, then
I think "Standards Action + RFC4020 Early Assignment" for the whole
range would be more appropriate.

  Bill

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

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:34:02 -0500

> there are two different numbers to indicate the same thing.

Its a transition issue.

  1.  Send and recv temporary value only.
  2.  Send temporary value and recv either one.
  3.  Send standards track value and recv either one.
  4.  Send and recv standards track value only.

An incentive to get on standards track sooner rather than later is
that the transition is less painful.

> range would be more appropriate.

Right.  But for limited experimentation if you are going to do
anything, allowing FCFS on a temporary basis would be good.  Allowing
permanent FCFS allocation is inviting a free for all.

>   Bill

Curtis

---

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:29:08 +0000 (GMT)

> that the transition is less painful.

Why bother? If a code-point is assigned, why change it just because 
the standard describing its use matures to standards track? Who cares 
if a number was assigned by an FCFS process? It's assigned...

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	[email-masked]	[email-masked]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
First Rule of History:
 	History doesn't repeat itself -- historians merely repeat each other.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:51:25 -0500

> if a number was assigned by an FCFS process? It's assigned...

To echo Paul's point from a different perspective, People Don't Move.
It's why we had the issues with SAFI numbering in the first place.

Personally, I'd rather see them move but insert your cat-herding comment
of choice here.

-- Jeff

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:41:38 -0800

I agree there's no motivation to move.  The barrier to
moving isn't technical, it's simply motivation.
Why waste time imlementing transition code that
doesn't increase the utility of the implementation?

I would reject any proposal of forcing moves as
unreasonable, so let's take that off the table.
I think there are now 2 options:

A. 25-32767: Standards Action + Early Assignment
  32768-65534: FCFS (permanent)

B. 25-65534: Standards Action + Early Assignment

There was a general feeling in the room in San
Diego that FCFS was useful, but I can't remember
if we talked about Early Assignment as a placeholder.
Curtis suggested that experimentation might be a
reason to have FCFS, but instead how about

B'. 25-64999: Standards Action + Early Assignment
    65000-65535: Private Use

  Bill

---

From: Chandrashekhar Appanna <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:48:03 -0800

> Diego that FCFS was useful, but I can't remember

  Yes.. that was my impression too. I too still 
  feel that A. is the way to go.

  Rgds,
  Chandra.

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:20:52 +0800

Now that I come to think of it, here's Yet Another Variant which I  
may have mentioned at the meeting where we discussed this:

25-16383: Standards Action + Early Assignment
16384-32767: FCFS
32768-65535: Reserved

The point being, even the ranges given above for SA+EA and FCFS are  
absurdly large.  If there is actually a run on the bank as Curtis  
describes (at least that's what I assume "free for all" means) then  
the damage that can be done is bounded and there's still a large  
reserved range kept fallow for future needs.

On the other hand I confidently predict that we will never need to  
break into the reserved range because exhausting the given ranges is  
inconceivable [1].

I'm fine with the proposal as written, but if folks need a security  
blanket, maybe the variant above will be sufficient.

--John

[1] With apologies to Inigo Montoya.  Also, we will never need more  
than 640k of memory.