Skip to main content

Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry
RFC 7214

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
04 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-ACh. However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries. This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" heading. This document updates RFC 5586.

This document also updates RFCs 6374, 6378, 6427, and 6428.')
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries@ietf.org to (None)
2014-05-30
04 (System) IANA registries were updated to include RFC7214
2014-05-29
04 (System) RFC published
2014-04-16
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7214">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2014-04-11
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7214">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2014-03-12
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-02-11
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2014-02-10
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2014-02-07
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-02-07
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2014-02-07
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-01-30
04 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2014-01-28
04 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-01-28
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-01-28
04 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-01-27
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-01-27
04 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-01-27
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2014-01-27
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-01-27
04 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2014-01-26
04 Carlos Pignataro IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2014-01-26
04 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-04.txt
2014-01-24
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2014-01-24
03 Adrian Farrel State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2014-01-24
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2014-01-23
03 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-01-23
03 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot comment]
My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point:

Updates:
RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv,   
RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing

Given that …
[Ballot comment]
My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point:

Updates:
RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv,   
RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing

Given that these texts are in the RFC Editor's queue, albeit about to be released by a blocking reference, it would be clearer to the reader  if we were to modify the IANA section directly using an RFC Editor's note and remove the update that
this RFC proposes. Given that the shepherd and the AD are the same for all three drafts this should be straightforward to address. In addressing this the note about changing the references should also be addressed.
2014-01-23
03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2014-01-23
03 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-01-23
03 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2014-01-23
03 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-01-22
03 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-01-21
03 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-01-21
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-01-21
03 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-01-21
03 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
As noted by Scott in his OPS-DIR review:
I do note that the ID does not actually say why a reorganization id a …
[Ballot comment]
As noted by Scott in his OPS-DIR review:
I do note that the ID does not actually say why a reorganization id a good thing to do.  It might be good
to add a sentence or two to explain the advantages of this work.
2014-01-21
03 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2014-01-21
03 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2014-01-21
03 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-01-21
03 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-01-20
03 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-01-20
03 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2014-01-20
03 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot discuss]
My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point:

Updates:
RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv,   
RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing

Given that …
[Ballot discuss]
My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point:

Updates:
RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv,   
RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing

Given that these texts are in the RFC Editor's queue, albeit about to be released by a blocking reference, it would be clearer to the reader  if we were to modify the IANA section directly using an RFC Editor's note and remove the update that
this RFC proposes. Given that the shepherd and the AD are the same for all three drafts this should be straightforward to address. In addressing this the note about changing the references should also be addressed.
2014-01-20
03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2014-01-17
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2014-01-17
03 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-01-17
03 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2014-01-17
03 Adrian Farrel State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2014-01-17
03 Adrian Farrel Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2014-01-17
03 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2014-01-17)
2014-01-16
03 Robert Sparks Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks.
2014-01-15
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-15
03 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here].  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here].  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, if approved, the current document provides a detailed series of instructions which include:

- the creation of a "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" name space which will bring together G-ACh registries from a variety of locations in the IANA matrix ( http://www.iana.org/protocols );

- the renaming of the "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types" registry to "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry;

- registrations from the following RFC and Internet-Drafts are now moved into the new "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" name space.  With the exception of one registry, the registries reference by these RFC are to be moved into the new G-ACh registry.

IANA understands that the entire document is a set of instructions for creation and maintenance of registries.  Upon approval of this document,
IANA will execute these instructions and, where necessary, consult with
the authors while doing so.

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.
2014-01-12
03 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-23
2014-01-09
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Bradner.
2014-01-09
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2014-01-09
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2014-01-02
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2014-01-02
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2014-01-02
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2014-01-02
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2014-01-02
03 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-02
03 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <mpls@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <mpls@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-03.txt> (Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New
  Registry'
  <draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-03.txt> 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 2014-01-17. 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

  RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated
  Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-ACh.
  However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been
  distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries.
  This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel
  (G-ACh) Parameters" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching
  Architecture (MPLS)" heading.  This document updates RFC 5586.

  This document also updates RFC 6374, RFC 6428, RFC 6378, RFC 6427,
  RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, and RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries/ballot/


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


2014-01-02
03 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-12-30
03 Adrian Farrel Last call was requested
2013-12-30
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2013-12-30
03 Adrian Farrel State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2013-12-30
03 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was changed
2013-12-30
03 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was generated
2013-12-30
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-12-30
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was generated
2013-12-30
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-12-30
03 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-03.txt
2013-12-30
02 Adrian Farrel
AD review
======

Loa and Carlos,

Thanks for this piece of housekeeping.

I think we need to be crystal clear so that IANA can easily …
AD review
======

Loa and Carlos,

Thanks for this piece of housekeeping.

I think we need to be crystal clear so that IANA can easily get this
right, and I struggled a bit in 2.2. and 2.3 with the difference
between "registry" and "registration". I think that *everything* that
you describe is a "registry" (or possibly "sub-registry") and nothing
you reference is a "registration".

Can you tidy that up and I will issue the IETF last call.

Thanks,
Adrian

PS Well done getting Amanda to review the content early.
2013-12-30
02 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2013-12-30
02 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon
(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?  …
(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. "Standards Track" is indicated on the title page.

(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

  RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated
  Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-Ach.
  However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been
  distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries.
  This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel
  (G-ACh)" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching
  Architecture (MPLS)" heading.  This document updates RFC 5586.
  This document also updates RFC 6374, RFC 6428, RFC 6378, RFC 6427,
  RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, and RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing.

Working Group Summary

  There is solid WG consensus to progress this document.

Document Quality

  This document has been carefully reviewed by the MPLS WG. It does not
  define a protocol and thus cannot be implemented, other than by creating
  a well organized IANA registry.

Personnel

  Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area
  Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 

  The document shepherd has read the document, has checked the updates
  based on last call comments, and has checked IDnits.

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

  no concerns.

(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?

  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 WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  no concerns

(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.

  The authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related
  to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR has been filed that references this document.

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

  Solid consensus.

(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 threats, no indication of discontent.

(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.

  No ID nits.

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

  No formal review needed. IANA reviews documents as part of the normal
  process following publication request.

(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?

  There are two references to Internet Drafts.

(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. All normative references are to standards track documents.

(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 WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document updates the IANA section of seven other documents, all of
  which are listed on the cover page, discussed in the abstract and introduction,
  and listed as normative references.

(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 IANA considerations is the entire point of this document.

(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.

  draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries creates a new registry that is a
  home to contain other existing registries. The allocation procedure for
  these existing registries remains the same as before.

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

  no such section.
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon State Change Notice email list changed to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries@tools.ietf.org
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon IESG state set to Publication Requested
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon Changed document writeup
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon Changed document writeup
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon Changed document writeup
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2013-12-23
02 Ross Callon IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2013-12-22
02 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02.txt
2013-12-20
01 Carlos Pignataro New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-01.txt
2013-12-04
00 Martin Vigoureux IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2013-09-23
00 Ross Callon Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2013-09-23
00 Ross Callon Document shepherd changed to Ross Callon
2013-09-23
00 Loa Andersson New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-00.txt