[manet] Re: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet -dlep-traffic-classification-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Don,

Speaking only as a well-meaning bystander here.

RFC 8126 has a handy checklist that will lead you in the right direction: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-1.3. Notably,

   7.  If you're using a policy that requires a designated expert
       (Expert Review or Specification Required), understand Section 5
       and provide review guidance to the designated expert (see
       Section 5.3).

I see there are already a bunch of Specification Required registries for DLEP, so I figured I’d look to see what review guidance was provided to the Designated Expert. I don’t see any, though, either in the registries or in RFC 8175. Maybe I missed it. I’ve added Rick Taylor (the Designated Expert for those registries) to the cc; maybe Rick can enlighten us as to whether there is some written guidance I’ve missed.

That means we can’t avail ourselves of the shortcut of saying, “use the same guidance to designated expert as all the other DLEP registries”. But that’s OK; it’s not that hard to write guidance. Here’s an example of a “guidance for designated experts” section that was recently approved by the IESG: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-16.html#name-guidance-for-designated-exp. I’m not saying you should dive right in and use that as a template, though; you’re probably best off starting by reading https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-5.3 (it’s not long).

One more comment: if indeed all the DLEP registries are missing the guidance they’re supposed have, I suppose it might be desirable to write your guidance broadly enough that the WG can point all the DLEP registries to that guidance. An example of a registry group that uses this kind of approach is https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml which has a header note that says

   For IS-IS registries and value ranges maintained via the "Expert
   Review" [RFC8126] registration procedure, guidance for IESG-designated
   experts can be found in [RFC7370].

Maybe DLEP should do similarly?

HTH,

—John

On Mar 20, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Don Fedyk <[email protected]> wrote:


Thanks for the fast response perhaps we can resolve this.

We asked for a Traffic Classification code entry out of an existing block
This has its own registry that has two entries based on the traffic marking for QoS either Diff Serv Code Points or Ethernet DSCPs.  If any other entries desired in they future , they would have to be some identifier in a packet or a frame that could be used to indicate a separate queue/QoS treatment.   We left that for future.
We expect a new draft will have to be written that justifies the entry.

So how do we make that more clear?

Thanks
Don



________________________________
From: Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 7:30 PM
To: Don Fedyk
Cc: The IESG; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 2:23 AM Don Fedyk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thanks for you comments we have posted a version that tries to address all the points,
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-14.txt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-14.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BO-LlykzCPh53bkYlKK2fib4y3uhDL-5a3pF3xwAkPcY0ozXvwuODsJ5oqEb24lmCO2rEOy087A$>

Please check the current IANA request. I cleaned up the text. We are asking for a range that is Specification Required not expert review.

Hi Don,

I'm looking at a diff between -13 and -14, and it doesn't look like anything changed that addresses the concern with Section 5.2.  You're still asking for a "Specification Required" chunk of the registry, but providing no advice to the designated experts for the registry regarding how they should resolve requests for that block.

Also note that my DISCUSS has no power anymore as my term has ended.  I'm happy to continue the conversation though, plus I think my replacement is likely to take ownership of it at some point soon.

-MSK

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]