Subject: Section 6.1 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 01:06:44 +0200

I've read this since I left the microphone. I stick to my guns -
the statement "Requests for type value assignments from outside of the
IETF should be sent to the IETF for review." is too vague and needs to
be more specific, as in

"should be addressed to the IPv6 WG if it exists or to the IESG if there
is no such WG in existence" or something like that.

     Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:05:44 -0700

Brian,

>is no such WG in existence" or something like that.

I agree that saying "sending to the IETF" is not workable and the 
instructions need to be more explicit.  Since this topic since this comes 
up in many drafts, I wonder if the IETF should set up a specific alias that 
these requests can be sent to so they won't be lost in the mail sent to the 
[email-masked].  I am, in parallel, asking if a new alias can be set up for 
sending this type of reqest to the IESG.

How about the following text?  This is a slight rewrite from what was 
presented in yesterday's w.g. meeting but preserves the same intent.

    3. Requests for new type value assignments from outside of the
       IETF should be sent to the IETF for review at <[email-masked]>.
       The general guideline for this review is that the assignment for
       a single type value should be made if there is public and open
       documentation of the protocol and if the assignment is not being
       used to circumvent an existing IETF protocol or work in progress.
       Requests for the assignment for multiple type values require
       additional review to insure that multiple type values are essential.

Comments?

Bob

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 14:16:52 -0400

The last paragraph of Section 2.4, item (f) of 
draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt is pointing to ICMP rate limiting 
configurability on a per node basis.

ICMP Rate-limiting configurability makes sense also on a per interface 
basis.

In a case of a router having different speed/bandwidth interfaces, for 
example IPv6 interfaces on fast links, as well as  slower links, the 
adequate ICMP rate-limiting parameters on a 1G or 10G Ethernet, could be 
quite different from a T1, or T3 link.

Regards,
Alex

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:20:19 +0200

Sure, if the IESG agrees, this is fine.

    Brian

Bob Hinden wrote:
> instructions need to be more explicit.  Since this topic since this 
> comes up in many drafts, I wonder if the IETF should set up a specific 
> alias that these requests can be sent to so they won't be lost in the 
> mail sent to the [email-masked].  I am, in parallel, asking if a new 
> alias can be set up for sending this type of reqest to the IESG.
>

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:53:18 +0300 (EEST)

> sending this type of reqest to the IESG.

One could ask them to be Cc'ed to [email-masked].  Their
business is ticketing the messages and making sure things don't fall
under the cracks?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:16:45 -0700

>Sure, if the IESG agrees, this is fine.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:22:00 -0700

Pakka,

>business is ticketing the messages and making sure things don't fall

I agree.  I send comments on this topic to the authors of RFC2434 
"Guidelines for writing an iana considerations" suggesting something 
similar.  There is an update underway where this will be addressed.

For now, using <[email-masked]> sounds right, but we can change it 
later in the process if there is a specific alias set up.

Bob

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:47:24 -0400

>From another thread:

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
    [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:42:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Codepoints' to BCP 

FWIW, I too agree that this document shouldn't deal with requests for
non-WG documents. The issues are very different.

> Look at section 6.1 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt
> that talks about similar things.

Looking at just this section, I think some additional clarifications
are needed:

>    1. The IANA should allocate and permanently register new ICMPv6 type
>       codes from IETF RFC publication.  This is for all RFC types
>       including standards track, informational, experimental status,
>       etc.

With the IESG approval of draft-iesg-rfced-documents-03.txt, I think
the above needs more clarification. Is it the intention that a
document that is submitted to the RFC Editor as an individual
submission should be granted ICMP code points? I hope not, as that
potentially opens up the door for permanent IANA code point allocation
for essentially unreviewed (or broken) purposes.

>    3. Requests for type value assignments from outside of the IETF
>       should be sent to the IETF for review.  The general guideline for
>       this review is that the assignment should be made if there is
>       public and open documentation of the protocol and if the
>       assignment is not being used to circumvent an existing IETF
>       protocol or work in progress.

Please read RFC 2434, where it talks about the motivation for having a
"designated expert". The above is too vague about who makes the has
final authority for making a decision. And what does it mean "to
circumvent an existing IETF protocol or work in progress"? E.g., if a
WG rejects something as "not a good idea", or no WG thinks that a
proposal "is a good idea", what happens?

Thomas

---

From: "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:06:48 +1000

> is no such WG in existence" or something like that.

I was going to ask if it would be appropriate to mention the
Internet Area ADs ... it seems unlikely we'll get rid of the
Internet Area any time soon, and they'd be the intermediate
step between the IPv6 WG and the IESG.

Just a passing thought,

-----Nick