IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points
draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry-07

[Ballot comment]
This is a very fine document that does what needs to be done.  Please don't take any further comments as any sort of criticism of that.  Please note and consider the substantive comments after the rant in the following paragraph.

As we've noted before, the IESG itself doesn't know what to do with this sort of thing, but I think this is a perfect example of a document that "updates" a Standards Track document, but should not, itself, be Standards Track.  Informational is the correct status of this document, and I urge the IESG to make it so.  I see no reason to *require* all updates to Standards Track documents to be Standards Track, and this document changes nothing that would indicate that status.  If it defined new values, it probably should be Standards Track.  But as it just creates the registry and registers what was already defined, it should not.

Now, substantive comments -- not blocking (note the "Yes" ballot), but please consider making these changes:

  The allocation policy for values 0x00 to 0xFA is IETF Review.  Values
  0xFB to 0xFE are experimental and are not to be assigned. 0xFF is
  reserved.

1. I think you need a citation to RFC 5226 here, and a normative reference.

2. FB to FE are not to be assigned; what about FF?  I suggest "0xFF is reserved for possible extensibility, and may only be assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]."

3. For the values you register from 6514, you give the reference as "[RFC 6514] [RFC-to-be]".  I suggest just "[RFC 6514]", as this RFC says nothing substantive that would be useful to someone looking up what, say, 0x03 means.

4. I don't think Section 2 has any value, and I would simply remove it.  Section 4 says all that's needed.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry-03.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/

a new subregistry is to be created called the "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" registry.

The allocation policy for values 0x00 to 0xFA is IETF Review as defined by RFC 5226. Values 0xFB to 0xFE are experimental and are not to be assigned. 0xFF is reserved.

There are initial registrations in this new registry as follows:

Value Meaning Reference
-------------|------------------------------------|--------------
0x00 no tunnel information present [RFC 6514]
0x01 RSVP-TE P2MP LSP [RFC 6514]
0x02 mLDP P2MP LSP [RFC 6514]
0x03 PIM-SSM Tree [RFC 6514]
0x04 PIM-SM Tree [RFC 6514]
0x05 BIDIR-PIM Tree [RFC 6514]
0x06 Ingress Replication [RFC 6514]
0x07 mLDP MP2MP LSP [RFC 6514]
0x08 - 0xFA Unassigned
0xFB - 0xFE Experimental [ RFC-to-be ]
0xFF Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed 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. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

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 registry for PMSI Tunnel Type code points) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks
WG (l3vpn) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA registry for PMSI Tunnel Type 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 2014-08-09. This last call period has been
extended to allow for the IETF-90 meeting. 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 6514 created a space of Tunnel Type code points for a new BGP
  attribute called the "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI
  Tunnel) attribute".  However the RFC did not create an IANA registry
  for these.

  There now is need to make further code point allocations from this
  name space.  This document serves to update RFC 65124 in that it
  creates an IANA registry for that purpose.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry/ballot/


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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry-03

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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 is requested. It is indicated in the header.
  The creation of a registry by IANA is requested, which explains the type of RFC being requested.

(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 6514 created a space of Tunnel Type code points for a new BGP
  attribute called the "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI
  Tunnel) attribute".  However the RFC did not create an IANA registry
  for these.

  There now is need to make further code point allocations from this
  name space.  This document serves to create an IANA registry for that
  purpose.

Working Group Summary

  The L3VPN, MPLS and IDR Chairs agreed to make the first version of this
  Document a WG Document. Revision 02 was then Last Called in the 3 WGs.
  No controversy related to that document nor to the way it was processed.

Document Quality

  This document only asks for the creation of a registry by the IANA.
  It is short, well written and has no further implication.

Personnel

  Martin Vigoureux, L3VPN co-chair is the Document Shepherd
  Adrian Farrel is the Responsible (Routing) 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.

  Several members of the L3VPN, MPLS and IDR Working Groups, the Chairs of
  these Working Groups and the Shepherd have reviewed the document.

(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.

  No need for such review

(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 concern

(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.

  Yes

(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 disclosure has been made against 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?

  The WGs consensus is solid

(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 such situation

(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.

  The I-D Nits check is clean (except 2 warnings which are not relevant)

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

  No need for such additional formal review

(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?

  No. A single Normative reference exist. It is an RFC.

(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.

(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.

  This document Updates RFC 6514. It justifies this update in the Introduction,
  and indicates the update in the Abstract.

(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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the IANA section and according to his view it
  meets the expectations set by RFC 5226. The registry is correctly named and
  placed. The initial values are correclty defined. The allocation policy also.

(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.

  The defined registry does not require Expert Review.

(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.

  no such section, so no such review.