IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters
draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-05

[Ballot comment]
clearing due to completion of dicussion with iana.

old comment:

minor  adjustment due to feedback provided by ieee rac is needed.

since this doesn't not impact IETF assignments I think it's fine. imho I reviewed and I do not belive that it impacts the consensus we already have.

from donald.

    From -04 to -05

  Re-cast informational material about relevant IEEE assignment
  policies to take into account the planned changes by the IEEE
  Registraion Authority as per [RAC-OUIdraft].

  Add a sentence forshadowing the future possibility of EUI-128 MAC
  addresses.

  Add InfiniBand as example of EUI-64 use.

  Minor editorial changes.

[Ballot comment]
minor  adjustment due to feedback provided by ieee rac is needed.

since this doesn't not impact IETF assignments I think it's fine. imho I reviewed and I do not belive that it impacts the consensus we already have.

from donald.

    From -04 to -05

  Re-cast informational material about relevant IEEE assignment
  policies to take into account the planned changes by the IEEE
  Registraion Authority as per [RAC-OUIdraft].

  Add a sentence forshadowing the future possibility of EUI-128 MAC
  addresses.

  Add InfiniBand as example of EUI-64 use.

  Minor editorial changes.

[Ballot comment]
minor  adjustment due to feedback provided by ieee rac is needed.

since this doesn't not impact IETF assignments I think it's fine. imho I reviewed and I do not belive that it impacts the consensus we already have.

    From -04 to -05

  Re-cast informational material about relevant IEEE assignment
  policies to take into account the planned changes by the IEEE
  Registraion Authority as per [RAC-OUIdraft].

  Add a sentence forshadowing the future possibility of EUI-128 MAC
  addresses.

  Add InfiniBand as example of EUI-64 use.

  Minor editorial changes.

[Ballot comment]
What's the point of Appendix B?  If it's to have a restricted list of only IETF allocations, should the IANA be maintaining this list, since what's in this document is doomed to become out of date? I don't find a list like this on the IANA web site. I don't specifically object to Appendix B; I just think that if these lists are useful, they ought to be maintained.

Give that Joe's draft has passed IETF last call, I think my DISCUSS is moot, so I'm dropping it.

Former DISCUSS:

Based on Donald's response to the below point, I realize that I should have entered this as a DISCUSS, so I am correcting that mistake.  Here't the original text of the comment:

What is the purpose of section 5.2?  It seems out of place with respect to the rest of this document.  I can't really object to it, since what it says is true, but it seems inappropriate to mention IANA RRTYPE assignments in a document about 802 code points.

Here's my further explanation of the problem:

The use of these RRtypes is not documented in any IETF publication, so documenting it in this one is precedent-setting.  Given that there has been substantial controversy about these RRtypes on the IETF mailing list (although it seems to be in a lull at the moment), publishing a reference to them in a completely unrelated document seems inappropriate.

This document is an individual submission with a clear focus on documenting IEEE 802 code points.  Knowing the authors, I think it is reasonable to assume that it has gotten sufficient review from experts on IEEE 802 code points, and that the consensus of the IETF on those points is valid.

That it additionally documents a DNS RRTYPE code point suggests to me that this section likely slipped under the radar and got no expert review from DNS experts, and that in fact this particular text does not represent any meaningful IETF consensus.

This DISCUSS can be cleared either by removing the text that documents these two RRtypes, or by doing a new last call on the IETF mailing list that specifically points out that this draft documents these two RRtypes.

It may be that there is a similar problem relating to the AFN allocation. It seems similarly unrelated, but probably isn't controversial, so it may be that this part of section 5.2 is not problematic. I will not object if this part of section 5.2 is kept, even if no new consensus call is done.

Adjusted to match

draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes

since it looks like that will clear it's second ietf last call with no outstanding complaints. (after three revs and a second last call)

[Ballot discuss]
Based on Donald's response to the below point, I realize that I should have entered this as a DISCUSS, so I am correcting that mistake.  Here't the original text of the comment:

What is the purpose of section 5.2?  It seems out of place with respect to the rest of this document.  I can't really object to it, since what it says is true, but it seems inappropriate to mention IANA RRTYPE assignments in a document about 802 code points.

Here's my further explanation of the problem:

The use of these RRtypes is not documented in any IETF publication, so documenting it in this one is precedent-setting.  Given that there has been substantial controversy about these RRtypes on the IETF mailing list (although it seems to be in a lull at the moment), publishing a reference to them in a completely unrelated document seems inappropriate.

This document is an individual submission with a clear focus on documenting IEEE 802 code points.  Knowing the authors, I think it is reasonable to assume that it has gotten sufficient review from experts on IEEE 802 code points, and that the consensus of the IETF on those points is valid.

That it additionally documents a DNS RRTYPE code point suggests to me that this section likely slipped under the radar and got no expert review from DNS experts, and that in fact this particular text does not represent any meaningful IETF consensus.

This DISCUSS can be cleared either by removing the text that documents these two RRtypes, or by doing a new last call on the IETF mailing list that specifically points out that this draft documents these two RRtypes.

It may be that there is a similar problem relating to the AFN allocation. It seems similarly unrelated, but probably isn't controversial, so it may be that this part of section 5.2 is not problematic. I will not object if this part of section 5.2 is kept, even if no new consensus call is done.

[Ballot comment]
What's the point of Appendix B?  If it's to have a restricted list of only IETF allocations, should the IANA be maintaining this list, since what's in this document is doomed to become out of date? I don't find a list like this on the IANA web site. I don't specifically object to Appendix B; I just think that if these lists are useful, they ought to be maintained.

[Ballot discuss]
Based on Donald's response to the below point, I realize that I should have entered this as a DISCUSS, so I am correcting that mistake.  Here't the original text of the comment:

What is the purpose of section 5.2?  It seems out of place with respect to the rest of this document.  I can't really object to it, since what it says is true, but it seems inappropriate to mention IANA RRTYPE assignments in a document about 802 code points.

Here's my further explanation of the problem:

The use of these RRtypes is not documented in any IETF publication, so documenting it in this one is precedent-setting.  Given that there has been substantial controversy about these RRtypes on the IETF mailing list (although it seems to be in a lull at the moment), publishing a reference to them in a completely unrelated document seems inappropriate.

This document is an individual submission with a clear focus on documenting IEEE 802 code points.  Knowing the authors, I think it is reasonable to assume that it has gotten sufficient review from experts on IEEE 802 code points, and that the consensus of the IETF on those points is valid.

That it additionally documents a DNS RRTYPE code point suggests to me that this section likely slipped under the radar and got no expert review from DNS experts, and that in fact this particular text does not represent any meaningful IETF consensus.

This DISCUSS can be cleared either by removing the text that documents these two RRtypes, or by doing a new last call on the IETF mailing list that specifically points out that this draft documents these two RRtypes.

It may be that there is a similar problem relating to the AFN allocation.  It seems similarly unrelated, but probably isn't controversial, so it may be that this part of section 5.2 is not problematic.  I will not object if this part of section 5.2 is kept, even if no new consensus call is done.

[Ballot comment]
What's the point of Appendix B?  If it's to have a restricted list of only IETF allocations, should the IANA be maintaining this list, since what's in this document is doomed to become out of date?  I don't find a list like this on the IANA web site.  I don't specifically object to Appendix B; I just think that if these lists are useful, they ought to be maintained.

[Ballot comment]
What is the purpose of section 5.2?  It seems out of place with respect to the rest of this document.  I can't really object to it, since what it says is true, but it seems inappropriate to mention IANA RRTYPE assignments in a document about 802 code points.

What's the point of Appendix B?  If it's to have a restricted list of only IETF allocations, should the IANA be maintaining this list, since what's in this document is doomed to become out of date?  I don't find a list like this on the IANA web site.  I don't specifically object to Appendix B; I just think that if these lists are useful, they ought to be maintained.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for including section 1.1 which helped my review considerably.

---

Maybe reversing the order of sections 1.1 and 1.2 would make 1.1 easier
to read.

---



  ([RFC5342] had a requirement for parallel unicast and multicast
  assignments under some circumstances even when both types were not
  applied for. That requirement has proven impractical and is
  eliminated in this document.)

s/both types were/one of the types was/

---



      IANA always sends the Template to an appointed Expert.  If the
        Expert recuses themselves or is non-responsive, IANA may choose
        an alternative appointed Expert or, if none are available, will
        contact the IESG.

s/none are/none is/

---

I am unwarrantedly bothered by the presence of Appendix B. I struggle to
see that it serves any purpose except to provide a secondary and
potentially conflicting source of information compared to the
registries.

Would the authors consider removing it and leaving the pointers to the
registries as the only source of information?

[Ballot discuss]

This should be easy to sort out, but if its vague then
I'd be worried we might be setting up a future conflict
between the IESG and an expert, so:

I'm not at all clear when exactly "IESG ratification" is
supposed to happen. Can you clarify? How big is very large?

Apologies if its stated somewhere and I missed it:-)

[Ballot discuss]
David Black's GenART review notes a typo in Section 3.2, which the author is aware of:
00-00-0E-00-42 should be 00-00-5E-00-42

This DISCUSS is holding that point, until there's a document rev or an RFC Editor note.

I otherwise have no objection....

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

Cc: Expert Dan Romascanu

IANA has reviewed draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has reviewed this Internet-Draft which contains significant documentation and changes to registration rules in the IEEE 802 Parameters registry. Upon approval of this document, IANA intends to work with the author to implement both the actions requested in section 5 of the current draft, but also ensure that the IEEE 802 Parameters registry is made consistent with the remainder of the draft (Sections 2, 3, and 4).

1) In reference to the "IANA 64-bit MAC Addresses" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers, the IANA Considerations section says the following:

"The IANA 64-bit MAC tables currently shows modified EUI-64 addresses because the note above the tables specifies a prefix of 02-00-5E or 03-00-5E. The tables should list both those prefixes, indicating that these prefixes produce modified EUI-64 addresses for use in constructing IPv6 address and indicating that prefixes of 00-00-5E or
01-00-5E produce 64-bit MAC addresses."

We're not sure exactly what this list of prefixes should look like. Rather than adding prefixes to the existing table of registrations, are we instead being asked to create a new table underneath the title "IANA 64-bit MAC Addresses," and just above the sub-registry itself, that will list 00-00-5E, 01-00-5E, 02-00-5E, 03-00-5E, and their uses?

If so, would it make more sense to create a table for all prefixes under "IANA MAC ADDRESS BLOCK" and leave the note that goes with each sub-registry intact, except to add text describing 00-00-5E and 01-00-5E to the note that goes with the "IANA 64-bit MAC Addresses" sub-registry?

Either way, please provide the exact text you want for the table(s).

(Also, if you want us to add text to the "IANA 64-bit MAC Addresses" note rather than remove it, please provide the exact text.)

2) Should this document be added as a reference for "IANA MAC ADDRESS BLOCK," along with [RFC5342], and the registration procedure changed from "see [RFC5342]" to "Expert Review (Expert may request IESG Approval)"?

3) Section 5.2 assigns two MAC Address AFNs. Where is the AFN registry?
Is it the existing registry called IANA MAC ADDRESS BLOCK?

However, the registries are using this format '00-00-00 to 7F-FF-FF' (example) for addresses. Can we ask the authors to supply the above format for the two suggested values, 16389 and 16390?

4) IANA does not have a mechanism that will trigger an alarm when the available space for either multicast or unicast EUI-48 identifiers under OUI 00-00-5E have been 90% or more exhausted. We can add a note to the registry pointing out that this will need to be done, but it would be better if this were the expert's responsibility.

5) Has IANA made the assignment in section 3.2, "00-00-0E-00-42"? This isn't included in the IANA Considerations section, but it also doesn't appear to be listed in http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers.

6) Section 5.3 mentioned an "Informational IANA Web Page Material".
We suggest that the authors should include the title of
the information registry "IEEE 802 Numbers" in the text for clarity
purposes.

7) The current IANA Considerations section is unclear to us  The authors
should clearly put in the IANA Considerations section what exactly
they want changed.

Changes in the registry?
New assignments?
Modifications to existing assignments?
Reference changes?

We understand that the above actions are all the IANA actions required
upon approval of this document.

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
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
  802 Parameters'
  as Best Current Practice

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 2013-06-04. 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


  Some IETF protocols make use of Ethernet frame formats and IEEE 802
  parameters.  This document discusses some use of such parameters in
  IETF protocols, specifies IANA considerations for assignment of
  points under the IANA OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier),
  provides some values for use in documentation, and obsoletes RFC
  5342.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis/ballot/


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