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

That looks sufficient to me.

-MSK

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:00 PM Don Fedyk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks John
>
> I didn't see your note until after I sent my last message.  I reformatted
> my proposed  text, updated the references.
> Trying to incorporate your points into the text I have this as a proposal:
>
>
> 55.2.  DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry
>
>    Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to create a new
>    DLEP registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type
>    Values".
>
>    The following table provides initial registry values and the
>    [RFC8126] defined policies that should apply to the registry:
>
>
>       +=============+=================================+=============+
>       | Type Code   | Description                     | Reference   |
>       +=============+=================================+=============+
>       | 0           | Reserved                        |             |
>       +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
>       | 1           | DiffServ Traffic Classification | [RFC2474]   |
>       +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
>       | 2           | Ethernet Traffic Classification | [IEEE8021Q] |
>       +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
>       | 3-65407     | Specification Required          |             |
>       +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
>       | 65408-65534 | Private Use                     |             |
>       +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
>       | 65535       | Reserved                        |             |
>       +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
>
>                       Table 2: Initial Registry Values
>
>
>    This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
>    Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
>    Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values registry for the
>    DLEP protocol, in accordance with BCP 26 and [RFC8126].
>
> Cheng, et al.           Expires 21 September 2025              [Page 12]
> Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025
>
>    This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where
>    standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate
>    Quality of Service (QoS) treatment.  It includes two specific
>    registries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management
>    for IP and Ethernet networks.  Reserved values are set aside for
>    similar future identifiers that may emerge to denote QoS treatment.
>    However, requests for new entries are not expected to be frequent.
>
>    Allocations within the registry are subject to the following
>    requirements:
>
>    1.  Documentation of the intended use of the requested value, in
>        compliance with the "Specification Required" policy defined in
>        [RFC8126].
>
>    2.  Approval by the Designated Expert (DE) appointed by the IESG.
>        The DE must:
>
>        *  Verify that the requested value is clearly documented and its
>           purpose and usage are unambiguous.
>        *  Ensure the proposed value does not conflict with existing work
>           or ongoing efforts within the IETF.
>        *  Confirm that any specification requesting a code point has
>           undergone review by the MANET working group (or a successor
>           mailing list designated by the IESG).
>        *  Validate that external specifications requesting code points
>           are publicly available, permanently archived, and do not
>           conflict with active or published IETF work.
>        *  Ensure the review process is conducted in a timely manner,
>           with any disputes resolved through consultation with the
>           appropriate working groups.
>
>    To simplify future registrations, it is recommended that this
>    guidance serves as a standard reference for all DLEP-related
>    registries.  Future specifications may include a header note pointing
>    to this guidance document.
>
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* John Scudder
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:43 PM
> *To:* Don Fedyk
> *Cc:* Murray S. Kucherawy; The IESG;
> [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rick Taylor
> *Subject:* 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];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [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]> 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]