IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-03

[Ballot comment]
Pete's comments make perfect sense to me, too.  That said, I think Section 2.2 is not wrong and not confusing the way it is, so it's not a big deal either way (if I had to be picky, I'd say that with respect to the specification of the registration policy at the top of the section, 5226 uses "Experimental Use", not "Experimental" ("Experimental" is for labelling the code points, as later in the section); but I would never be so picky).

[Ballot comment]
It's not at all clear to me why this document is going for Standards Track or why it updates 4379 and 6424, nor does the ballot nor shepherd writeup explain. It's creating a registry, which doesn't change the protocol in either of those documents. Seems to me fine that it be Informational, and that it doesn't update anything.

2.2, 2.3, 2.4:

OLD
  The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are:

      0-250    Standards Action
    251-254    Experimental
        255    Standards Action
NEW
  The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry is Standards
  Action.

The registration policy for the entire registry is "Standards Action". Within the registry itself, the values 251-254 should be marked Experimental (which they are) and 255 should be marked Reserved (which it is), but that doesn't change the registration policy.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments:

IANA understands that the authors of this document wish to create four new registries under the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters heading at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

First, a new registry called "DS Flags" will be created in the location above. The registration policy, as defined by RFC 5226, is Standards Action. These are the initial registrations:

Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
7 N: Treat as a Non-IP Packet RFC4379
6 I: Interface and Label Stack Object Request RFC4379
5-0 Unassigned

Second, a new registry called "Multipath Type" will be created in the location above. The registration policy, as defined by RFC 5226, is as follows:

0-250 Standards Action
251-254 Experimental
255 Standards Action

Initial registrations:

Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
0 no multipath RFC4379
1 Unassigned
2 IP address RFC4379
3 Unassigned
4 IP address range RFC4379
5-7 Unassigned
8 Bit-masked IP address set RFC4379
9 Bit-masked label set RFC4379
10-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental [ RFC-to-be ]
255 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, a new registry called "Pad Type" will be created in the location above. The registration policy, as defined by RFC 5226, is as follows:

0-250 Standards Action
251-254 Experimental
255 Standards Action

Initial registrations:

Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
0 Reserved RFC4379
1 Drop Pad TLV from reply RFC4379
2 Copy Pad TLV to reply RFC4379
3-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental [ RFC-to-be ]
255 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, a new registry called "Label Stack Address Type" will be created in the location above. The registration policy, as defined by RFC 5226, is as follows:

0-250 Standards Action
251-254 Experimental
255 Standards Action

Initial registrations:

Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
0 Reserved RFC4379
1 IPv4 Numbered RFC4379
2 IPv4 Unnumbered RFC4379
3 IPv6 Numbered RFC4379
4 IPv6 Unnumbered RFC4379
5-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental [ RFC-to-be ]
255 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA registries for LSP ping Code Points) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA registries for LSP ping Code Points'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-03-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 created name spaces for Multiprotocol Label
  Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping.  However, those RFCs
  did not create the corresponding IANA registries for the Downstream
  Mapping object Flags (DS Flags), Multipath Type, Pad TLV and Address
  Types.

  There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these
  name spaces.  This document updates RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 in that it
  creates the IANA registries for that purpose.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

AD review
=======

Hi authors,

Thanks for this simple and useful document.

I've done my usual AD review and I only have a couple of nits to do
with the way the IANA information is present. If you could resolve them
either by telling me I'm a fool or by fixing the text, then we can move
forward.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

Brace yourselves for the IESG saying that this does not Update 4379 and
6424. We'll handle it when it happens :-)

---

Section 2.1 has a final paragraph
  Note that "DS Flags" is a field included in two TLVs defined in
  "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
  Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry: Downstream Mapping TLV (value 2)
  and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (value 20).  Modification to "DS
  Flags" registry will affect both TLVs.
Is IANA supposed to take any action as a result of this paragraph? Or is
this just an observation for the reader?

If the former: it's not clear what.
If the latter: IANA will be unhappy to find commentary in the IANA
section. We'll need to delete it or find somewhere else to move it to.

---

Section 2.2

  Assignments of Multipath Types are via Standards Action [RFC5226].

Except there are four that are marked "Experimental" which are
presumably not assigned via Standards Action.

You can fix this by saying: 

  The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are:

          0-250    Standards Action
        251-254    Experimental
            255    Standards Action

  IANA is requested to make the following initial assignments

          0    no multipath                            RFC4379
          1    Unassigned
          2    IP address                              RFC4379
          3    Unassigned
          4    IP address range                        RFC4379
        5-7    Unassigned
          8    Bit-masked IP address set                RFC4379
          9    Bit-masked label set                    RFC4379
    10-250    Unassigned
    251-254    Experimental                            This document
        255    Reserved                                This document
 
---

Similar issue in 2.3 and 2.4

---

Section 4 can presumably be deleted.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard. "Standards Track" is indicated in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 created name spaces for Multiprotocol Label
  Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping.  However, those RFCs
  did not create the corresponding IANA registries for the Downstream
  Mapping object Flags (DS Flags), Multipath Type, Pad TLV and Address
  Types.

  There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these
  name spaces.  This document updates RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 in that it
  creates the IANA registries for that purpose.

Working Group Summary

  The draft is needed to create registries for two other WG documents and
  has progressed through the WG with no controversy and sufficient support.

Document Quality

  The document has been well reviewed. The acknowledgements section will
  need to be filled in or deleted before final publication.

Personnel

  Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible
  Area Director?

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  Loa Andersson (WG chair) is co-author, and the other two WG chairs have
  reviewed the document. The document has gone though WG last call with
  unanimous support. The document was updated after WG last call to fix
  a few minor editorial issues which were identified during last call.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  no concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  This document will need the normal IANA review that occurs
  during IETF last call.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  no concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  All authors have confirmed that they do not know of any IPR that
  applies to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR has been disclosed that applies to this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  Solid support. As would be expected with a document that creates a
  registry, those who are working on documents that need this registry
  pay attention and support the document, and others have been
  largely silent.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  no threats, no discord.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  no nits found (document shepherd has run ID nits)

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Normal IANA review will be needed during IETF last call.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  normative references are to standards track RFCs. There are informative
  references to documents that will use the registries created by this
  document.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  no downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  not applicable.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The IANA section is pretty much the entire document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  All created registries will be assigned by standards action.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  not applicable (there is no formal language in the document).