Subject: [PWE3] Re: Your draft on IANA assignments

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:06:11 -0600

Eric,

CCing the list ...

Gray, Eric wrote:

>Luca,
>
>	I have some minor questions on a couple of the points,
>but it looks to me as if you're faithfully trying to capture
>the current consensus (such as it is).
>
>	One question I have is - for Pseudowire Type(s) 1025
>through 4096 and 32768 - 
>
>	o	32768 is a 16-bit value (1000 0000 0000 0000);
>		I assume you mean either zero or 32767.
>  
>
correct , that is a mistake I need to correct it.
( probably when the rfc editor edits it . )

>	o	these are currently listed as not available for
>		IANA assignment, without stating under what 
>		conditions they might be "released for use"
>		later on ("for future use"); while this is not
>		new, the usual term is simply "Reserved."
>
>  
>
My take is that a future RFC will have to obsolete this one and set 
those code points.

>	Another has to do with the Interface Parameters sub-TLV
>(possibly only a clarification for my poor, tired, brain) - 
>
>	o	for sub-TLV types 65 through 127 and 255, same
>		question-begging issue with "for future use."
>	o	for sub-TLV types 128 through 254, this is a 
>		very small space for FCFS, vendor-specific, use;
>		I believe there may be numerous reasons why some
>		vendors may stake claims in this number space and
>		I was under the impression that several people
>		argued that - on that basis - the entire 8-bit
>		space should be allocated on a "Expert Review"
>		or "IETF Consensus" basis - is that no longer 
>		the case, or have I got this confused with the
>		status bits?
>
>  
>
Given the constraints placed on interface parameters sub-TLVs I do not 
see a problem with this space being too small.
Remember that there can only be a limited number of static interface 
attributes....

>	The same question may apply to Attachment Identifier 
>and Attachment Group Identifier - also small spaces - but 
>probably less likely to be quickly depleted, given that only 
>one number is assigned in this document from each space.
>
>  
>
yes , I really can't see more then a dozen ever been allocated ! this 
filed is 8 times the size of the IP version field.... how many useful 
addressing schemes can one have ?

>	You can do anything you want, though, as these are all
>minor (or possibly clarification), but - were it me - I would
>take out "for future use" in each of sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.1
>and 2.3.2 - and - fix the reference to 32768 as 15-bit number.
>
>  
>
Yes , thinking about it I should have probably made that IETF consensus 
..... instead of reserved .....
I'm not sure I have the chance to change that anymore....

>	So, yeah, I now support the draft.
>
>  
>
Great.  Thanks.

Luca

>--
>Eric

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