Subject: Re: Updated version posted: draft-kompella-zinin-early-allocation-01.txt

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:59:23 -0700

Pekka,

 Catching up on old things...

Wednesday, May 19, 2004, 5:11:19 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2004, Alex Zinin wrote:
>>  Kireeti and I updated the draft based on the comments we got via e-mail and at
>>  the meeting in Seoul. Please check the new rev. We will be asking Bill to Last
>>  Call the document within a few weeks. Send comments to [email-masked],
>>  please.

> Seems like good stuff.  First time I read this -- a few rather minor 
> comments below.

> semi-substantial
> ----------------

>    If conditions (a) or (b) are not met, then the processes in this memo
>    do not apply.

==>> why do not conditions (c) and (d) be considered as blocking?  What's the
> difference with these processed?

> Or do you mean that (a) or (b) are the "show-stopper" issues which MUST have
> been fulfilled before even considering this approach, and c)-d) must be
> filled in any case, but that's then up to the WG (and chairs) whether 
> they consider these filled or not?

Exactly.

> The similar comment applies to:

>    2) The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early
>       allocations described in section 2 are met, particularly
>       conditions (c) and (d).

> ....

>    [3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
>        Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004

==>> this wasn't used in the body; remove or add reference?

removed

> editorial
> ---------

>    performs allocation.  However, in situations where codepoints are a
>    scarce resource and/or the IETF community is willing to retain tight
>    control of the protocol, policies such as IESG Approval, IETF

==>> s/is willing/wants/ (there's a nuance difference but I think the latter
> is closer)

ok

>    2. IANA allocates codepoints silently used for other extensions.
>       Different extensions will collide.

==>> please reword, I didn't quite understand the "silently used" parts. 
> Prefix with "that someone has illegitimately" ?

Frankly, I don't find your suggested text much clearer either :)
What the text means is someone just grabbing a codepoint and using
it without registration.

>    1) The authors (editors) of the document submit a request for early
>       allocation the Working Group chairs, specifying which code points

==>> s/allocation/allocation to/

ok

>    immediately obvious: depletion of code space by early allocations;
>    and process overburden of IANA itself.  The processes described here

==>> I find "process overburden" a bit difficult to parse.

changed to "process overloading".

Will resubmit shortly.
Thanks!

Alex

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:21:51 +0300 (EEST)

> > they consider these filled or not?

But isn't b) at least also a judgment call?  It might not be clear
whether a random I-D has "adequate description" -- this check must be
done by someone, and someone else might disagree.  I agree that a) is
a more binary choice.

> What the text means is someone just grabbing a codepoint and using

Well, this is not a hot issue for me, though IMHO "silently used" is 
not obvious enough (it could be read many different ways).

-- 
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: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:08:34 -0700

Pekka,

> But isn't b) at least also a judgment call?

In some situations. If there's no documentation at all, then it's a clear cut.

> It might not be clear

Any wording suggestions?

> not obvious enough (it could be read many different ways).

If the text is good enough, let's leave it as is. If you're afraid it
may be misinterpreted, I'd like to know what you have in mind.

Thanks.
Alex