OSPFv3 Instance ID Registry Update
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-04

[Ballot comment]
The introduction doesn't really lead into Section 2 with any explanation. We just have a statement of a problem that exists in the introduction, and then a statement about a change to the registry in section 2, with no text at all stating how this solves the problem.

What I was no doubt naively wondering was why this wasn't being handled through more specific allocations, rather than a private allocation with no rules.  I assume it's because you don't want to reserve iids for all time for transition technology, but it would be good if that were stated explicitly.

I don't have a strong objection to this document, but it would be awfully nice if there were an additional glue paragraph in there somewhere explaining the leap from problem to registry update.

[Ballot comment]
The abstract is completely unhelpful.  It should say what sort of modification is being made.  Suggested:
"""
This document modifies the "Unassigned" number space in the IANA "OSPFv3 Instance ID Address Family Values" registry.  The current "Unassigned" space is divided into two halves, one half "Unassigned" but managed via Standards Action, and one half reserved for private use.
"""

[Ballot discuss]
The introduction doesn't really lead into Section 2 with any explanation. We just have a statement of a problem that exists in the introduction, and then a statement about a change to the registry in section 2, with no text at all stating how this solves the problem.

I don't have a strong objection to this document, but it would be awfully nice if there were an additional glue paragraph in there somewhere explaining the leap from problem to registry update.

[Ballot discuss]
The introduction doesn't really lead into Section 2 with any explanation.  We just have a statement of a problem that exists in the introduction, and then a statement about a change to the registry in section 2, with no text at all stating how this solves the problem.

I don't have a strong objection to this document, but it would be awfully nice if there were an additional glue paragraph in there somewhere explaining the leap from problem to registry update.

[Ballot comment]
No objection to the publication of this document, but please improve the following, which confused me.

  For example,
  [I-D.ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing] describes an application
  in which IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses are used to transport IPv4
  packets over an IPv6 network.  While the IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses
  do in fact represent IPv6 destinations, it would be operationally
  benefitial to be able to easily identify the the specific application
  by having a separate space to do so.

My first impression was: it doesn't make sense to embed a protocol hierarchy (as we call it in the DPI world) into an OSPF instance, so you surely want the "private use" range. On top of that "unassigned - Standard Action" was already available in the registry.
After thinking so more about it, I'm not sure any longer that you intend "private use", and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-11#section-13 doesn't help.
Regardless of whether it's right or wrong to embed a protocol hierarchy into the OSPF instance (this will be a discussion for raft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing), since you use this example as a justification for this document, express if the example is supposed to use "private use" or "reserved". In other words, why "unassigned" doesn't work

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

It would be nice if the Abstract included a second paragraph...

  This document updates RFC 5838 that includes the base definintion for
  the modified registry.

---

Section 1

As this document will (presumably) be published as an RFC and cause the
registry to be updated, the text in Section 1 will become confusing:
                     
  The following table lists the value ranges as
  currently allocated.

How about...

  The following table lists the value ranges as
  allocated for RFC 5838.

---

You could either delete the change log, or add a note to the RFC editor
that they can remove it upon publication.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update and has the following comments:

IANA has questions about the Updated Reference and Registration Procedures.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which needs to be completed.

In the OSPFv3 Instance ID Address Family Values subregistry of the Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters

the last entry in the current version of the registry is:

Value: 128-255
Description: Unassigned
Reference:

This will be removed and replaced with two entries as follows:

Value 128-191
Description: Unassigned
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 192-255
Description: Private Use
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA will note that new registrations from the range 128-191 require Standards Action as defined by RFC5226. Values from the range 192-255 are for Private Use as defined by RFC 5226. The OSPFv3 Instance ID Address Family Values subregistry will also have [ RFC-to-be ] recorded as a reference.

Question 1->Should this document be listed as one of the two defined
Reference for the registry "OSPFv3 Instance ID Address Family Values"?
The changes will look like this:

Registry Name: OSPFv3 Instance ID Address Family Values

Value 128-191
Registration Procedures: Standards Action
Reference: [RFC5838][ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 192-255
Registration Procedures: Private Use
Reference: [RFC5838][ RFC-to-be ]

Question 2->Do you intend to allow new allocations in the range 192 -255?
Or should the range be marked as "Reserved for Private Use"?
The table in Section 2 indicated that the range is "Unassigned"
and for "Private Use".

According to RFC5226, it said "Private Use: Private use only (not
assigned)".

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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPFv3 Instance ID Registry Update) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'OSPFv3 Instance ID Registry Update'
  as Proposed
Standard

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 2013-01-24. 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 modifies the "Unassigned" number space in the IANA
  "OSPFv3 Instance ID Address Family Values" registry.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update/ballot/


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

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

    Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary

    This draft modifies the "OSPFv3 Instand ID Address Family Values"
    IANA registry to have IDs 192-255 designated for "Private Use"
    as described in RFC 5226.

    Working Group Summary

    The new range is for applications that do not justify a standards
    track OSPFv3 Instance ID allocation. An example would be "Routing
    for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets" -
    draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-05.txt.


    Document Quality

    The document is short and to the point. It satisfies its
    intended purpose.

    Personnel
     
    Acee Lindem is the document shepherd and Stewart Bryant is the
    responsible AD.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

    The document resulted from discussions regarding the "Routing
    for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets" and was covered in the WG document
    status in Vancounver.  The document was reviewed by Acee Lindem
    and Stewart Bryant. Others may have reviewed it without comment.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

    No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
   
    No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

  There is no opposition to the draft.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  All idnits errors and warnings have been resolved.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

    No. 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

    No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

    The document is solely devoted to a single IANA action. The
    action is clear.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

    None. 

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

    Not Applicable.