Management Guidelines for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-07

[Ballot comment]
Ongoing discussion with Luigi and Peter and Brian is on the way to resolve issues identified by my earlier discuss. I expect the authors and the sponsoring ADs to ensure that the right thing happens, and have cleared the formal discuss.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this document, it was much needed and proposes overall the right approach to LISP EID management. And I expect I can move to a Yes position soon.

I agree with some of the comments from Peter Yee's Gen-ART review.

I’d like to ensure that we work with Luigi to resolve these issues. From my perspective, I think the document is in better shape than the impression one would get just from the listed issues. It is an experimental setup, and some “soft state” approach for instance may be sufficient. However, I do think the following changes should be considered:

1. Add some language to Section 4 to explain if there are things that the registry team should check, and if a failure in those checks is grounds for refusing the request. Even if the check is just to ensure that the request looks reasonable in an expert or the team’s opinion, and that the contact information is valid.

2. Could we be firmer on the expiration and re-registration timeouts? Couldn’t you just say MUST be renewed in 12 months or else after 12+N months the registration will be recycled for other purposes?

3. Section 9 needs to have a more IANA considerations style to it. While you can mostly refer to the rest of the document, I would have expected at least to start with a very basic rule, such as FCFS or Expert Review. Also, start with “The following new registry should be maintained…”.

4. I think the end of the second paragraph of Section 9 was a bit confusing. What “EID registration service” do you mean? The ability to reserve EIDs as outlined earlier in the document? Or something else, like an automated, programmatic lookup service? Can’t you just say “RIPE needs to maintain a registry of EIDs, including facilities for interested LISP users to request registrations, and for others to see the granted registrations and the associated contact information”?

[Ballot comment]
I share Alvaro's thought that this should be experimental. (And if not that, then a BCP).

-4 (and others)
The top level "MUST" follow these policies does not need the MUST. The policies have their own 2119 keywords. As written, it implies things like "MUST follow this SHOULD" which is a bit awkward.

4, policy 2:
I gather the point is not so much that the registrations need to be renewed as it is they need to expire if not renewed. That is, there's no SHOULD level requirement for a registrant to renew it's registration (maybe no longer needs the registration.)

[Ballot discuss]
This document describes a set of guidelines that will be used in an experiment.  Why is it not an Experimental document?  [I may have missed the discussion in the archive.]

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

IANA understands that there is an operational requirement for an EID registration service that ensures uniqueness of EIDs according to the requirements described in Section 5 of the current document. Furthermore, there is an operational requirement for EID registration service that allows a lookup of the contact information of the entity that registered the EID.

IANA further understands that RIPE NCC has agreed to run both the registration service documented in this draft for the duration of the experiment.

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. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, brian@innovationslab.net, damien.saucez@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (LISP EID Block Management Guidelines) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP EID Block Management Guidelines'
  as Informational RFC

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 2016-02-05. 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


  This document proposes a framework for the management of the LISP EID
  Prefix.  The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution
  of the address space, granting temporary usage of sub-prefixes of
  such space to requesting organizations.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/ballot/


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

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has a question about the action requested in this draft.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, a registry will be created for the LISP EID assignments. This registry will contain the template information as described in section 6 of this document.

IANA has the following questions:

This document does not specify registration procedures (according to RFC 5226) for the LISP EID assignments. In the template information, there is a prefix request as well as rationale which leads us to believe this will be an Expert Review registry. Experts should be assigned by the IESG so that requests can be evaluated before assignment.

IANA understands that assignments from from the assigned prefix are valid for a period of one year and must be reviewed at the termination of that period and either removed from the registry or renewed for another year.

IANA understands that this is the only action required 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (LISP EID Block Management Guidelines) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP EID Block Management Guidelines'
  as Informational RFC

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 2015-04-28. 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


  This document proposes a framework for the management of the LISP EID
  Prefix.  The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution
  of the address space, granting temporary usage of sub-prefixes of
  such space to requesting organizations.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/ballot/


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