Subject: [trill] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 06:32:05 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One question: Why are there no IANA registries for tables 3.1 and 4.1?

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:14:09 -0400

Hi Mirja,

Thanks for your comment. See below.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...

I believe that the first time a code point is specified, it is a
judgement call whether or not to create an IANA registry. If not, then
obviously the first subsequent document that defines additional values
needs to set up a registry. But if it doesn't appear that there are
likely to be any additional values for some time, I don't think it is
necessary to specify a registry and decide on an allocation policy
right away. By the time the first additional value needs to be
assigned the level of demand and the registration policy may be
clearer.

However, if the IESG would like, it would certainly be simple enough
to have these be IANA registries. (If that were done now I would
suggest an allocation policy of IETF Review due to the limited number
of values available.)

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 22:10:31 +0200

Hi Donald,

I guess it’s up to the wg to decide if a registry is needed or not. I was just wondering why it was decided to not have one and wanted to double-check that this is the right thing to do. I’m fine with that.

I would however, recommend to add a sentence saying that a document that would want to use any additional value would also need to set up a registry. And further, while table 4.1 says "Available for assignment by IETF Review“, table 3.1 doesn’t; i would recommend to add this there as well.

Mirja

> Am 04.07.2016 um 20:14 schrieb Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
>

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:43:08 -0400

Mirja: 

The assignments imply a standards action for additional assignments.   The WG review did not request further details, but if the IESG feels this is appropriate (and it may well be), it could be changes to IANA registries without changing the sense of the WG LC. 

As WG co-chair, I do not think we need to go back to the WG to discuss this and Donald can set-up the registries in the document. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 4:11 PM
To: Donald Eastlake
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; The IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Donald,

Mirja

> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email-masked]
>

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:46:30 -0400

OK, I'll add registries.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:37:44 -0400

Version -10 has been uploaded with the registries added (and GENART
review comments resolved).

Thanks,
Donald