Subject: [babel] AEs 5 & 6

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:50:00 -0700

I am hoping the wg is agreeable to proposed AEs 5 and 6, which replace
the existing need for the source specific routing tlvs? (does silence mean assent?)

(I am) (well, what does a plen of 0 or > 128 mean? Could > 128 mean something?)

I'd like to start coding those up, unless someone has already beat me to it.

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 03:19:38 +0200

> the existing need for the source specific routing tlvs?

I think that should be 4 and 5 -- Gwendoline, I don't remember -- was
there a reason to skip 4?

As to registering these values, I think I f*cked up in RFC 7557 --
I didn't ask for the creation of an AE registry:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7557#section-5

The friendly chairs will correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my
understanding that what the WG can decide is to create an AE registry.
Once the AE registry is created, we can allocate the relevant AEs
according to the proposed policy.

Question to the WG -- are we agreed on a policy of Specification Needed?
Note that this implies that we cannot register 4 through 7 until Matthieu
and Gwendoline publish they respective drafts -- Specification Needed
implies we need a specification.  (I support Specification Needed, which
is consistent with the other Babel registries.)

Question to Donald and Russ -- is this mail enough to establish the
registry, is it enough to put it in an Internet-Draft, or do we need to
wait for rfc6126bis to be published?

As to implementations -- the proper thing to do would be to use the
Experimental range.  However, since most of the Babel development
community is present on this list, I wouldn't be opposed to using the
unregistered values for now, as long as we are agreed that we might change
them if something happens before registration.

Okay, so let's put that into RFC-ese (I'm getting good at that, which
I find worrying):

IANA Considerations
*******************

IANA is instructed to create a new registry, called "Babel Address
Encodings (AEs)".  The allocation policy for this registry is
Specification Required [RFC5226].

The initial values in the Babel Address Encodings are as follows:

   +---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Type    | Name                                    | Reference     |
   +---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
   | 0       | Wildcard                                | [RFC6126]     |
   |         |                                         |               |
   | 1       | IPv4                                    | [RFC6126]     |
   |         |                                         |               |
   | 2       | IPv6                                    | [RFC6126]     |
   |         |                                         |               |
   | 3       | Link-local IPv6 address                 | [RFC6126]     |
   |         |                                         |               |
   | 224-254 | Reserved for Experimental Use           | this document |
   |         |                                         |               |
   | 255     | Reserved for expansion of the AE space  | this document |
   +---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+

The following values MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be registered when the relevant
documents get published:

   +---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Type    | Name                                    | Reference     |
   +---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
   | 4       | Source-specific IPv4                    | [Boutier]     |
   |         |                                         |               |
   | 5       | Source-specific IPv6                    | [Boutier]     |
   |         |                                         |               |
   | 6       | TOS-sensitive IPv4                      | [Chouasne]    |
   |         |                                         |               |
   | 7       | TOS-sensitive IPv6                      | [Chouasne]    |
   +---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+

(We need to update RFC 2119 with MIGHT, MIGHT NOT and IF SOMEBODY CARES ENOUGH.)

-- Juliusz

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:12:37 -0700

I'm in favor of an IANA registry of registration procedure
"Specification Required", especially since you only need
to publish a draft to assign a value, not necessarily an RFC.

That would match the existing registries:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/babel/babel.xhtml <https://www.iana.org/assignments/babel/babel.xhtml>

David

> On Apr 14, 2017, at 18:19, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel