IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Options
draft-manner-router-alert-iana-03

[Ballot comment]
While I have no problem with the security considerations as stated (and in fact believe the
reference to problems from conflicts or lack of support for experimental code points to be
valuable), I was wondering if there had been a response to Robert Elz's comments (from
7/10/08, submitted to ietf@ietf.org).

[Ballot comment]
Although a full alignment for values in the IPv4 and IPv6 registries is no longer possible because of the initial allocations, would not it be useful to make a recommendation for alligned allocation from now on? This would mean to mark as 'not in use' values 33, 34, 35 in the IPv4 registry and to recommend that values 36-65502 and these in the experimental space are allocated similarly.

[Ballot comment]
This document is still phrased as if it were a proposal, rather than the RFC that changes IANA procedures. Below are some suggested changes to fix that.

Section 1., paragraph 4:
>    This document proposes updates to the IANA registry for managing IPv4
>    and IPv6 Router Alert Option Values, and proposes to remove one

  s/proposes updates to/updates/
  s/proposes to remove/removes/


Section 3., paragraph 1:
>    This section contains the proposed new procedures for managing IPv4

  s/proposed//


Section 3., paragraph 3:
>    This should not change, as there has been seen little

  s/This should not change/This document does not change this/
  s/has been seen/is/


Section 3.2., paragraph 1:
>    The registry for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values should continue to

  s/should continue/continues/


Section 3.2., paragraph 2:
>    In addition, the following value should be removed from the IANA

  s/should be removed/are removed/


Section 3.2., paragraph 5:
>    The following IPv6 RAO values should be made available for

  s/should be made/are made/

IANA has questions:

What exactly needs to be done in section 3.2? There is no
registration "RSVP Aggregation level 0" in the registry. Only the
range 3-35 is allocated to "Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level.”
How should the registry record this change?

Action 1 (Section 3.1):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following
registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: IPv4 Router Alert Option Values
Registration Procedures: IETF Review
Initial contents of this registry will be:

Value Description Reference
------------ -------------------------------------- -----------
0 Router shall examine packet [RFC2113]
1-32 Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level [RFC3175]
33-65502 Available for assignment by the IANA
65503-65534 Available for experimental use
65535 Reserved


Action 2 (Section 3.2):

IANA has questions:
It is unclear how to modify the registry to reflect the removal
of "RSVP Aggregation level 0," as the registry has no direct
registration with that description.


Action 3 (Section 3.2):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "IPv6 Router Alert Option Values" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values


Value Description Reference
--------- ------------------------- ---------
65503-65534 Experimental use
[RFC-manner-router-alert-iana-03]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.

I should look into the draft, the discussion, and if it looks to be in reasonable shape, ask for a pseudo WGLC on the intarea list.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The RAO draft
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:40:24 +0200 (EET)
From: Jukka MJ Manner
To: jari.arkko@piuha.net, townsley@cisco.com
CC: McDonald, Andrew , John Loughney , Martin Stiemerling


Hi,

We triggered the discussion on the Int-area and NSIS mailing lists about
the problems with the current RAO IANA specifications (thread "RAO for
IPv4"). The discussion ended with an acknowledgement that the problem is
there and should be cleaned up.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manner-router-alert-iana-00.txt

What would be the next steps to fix the situation?

Regards,
Jukka