Subject: IANA considerations update for NETCONF protocol draft

From: "Rob Enns" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:02:37 -0800

The IANA review of the protocol draft raised some questions on how
to handle review of the spec for new capabilities. Based on those
questions
and input from Andy, here's a proposed update to the IANA considerations
section that requests 2 different registries for NETCONF capabilities:

- the first would be for IETF standardized capabilities, and would
  require IETF consensus for new capabilities

- the second would be for enterprise capabilities, and would be
  first come first served, with a specification required

Could the WG review this and comment?

thanks,
 Rob

------------------

10.3.  NETCONF Capability URNs

   This document requests that IANA create a registry for allocating
   NETCONF capability identifiers.  Allocation from the registry
   requires a specification and IETF consensus (approval by the NETCONF
   working group or a follow-on working group).

   The initial content of the registry will be the capability URNs
   defined in Section 8.  Once further experience is gained with
   NETCONF, this sub-namespace may be used for additional purposes.

   Following the guidelines in RFC 3553 [7], IANA is requested to assign
   a NETCONF sub-namespace as follows:

   Registry name: netconf

   Specification: Section 8 of this document.

   Repository: The following table.

   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | Index              | Capability Identifier                        |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | :writable-running  | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:writable- |
   |                    | running:1.0                                  |
   | :candidate         | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:candidate |
   |                    | :1.0                                         |
   | :confirmed-commit  | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:confirmed |
   |                    | -commit:1.0                                  |
   | :rollback-on-error | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:rollback- |
   |                    | on-error:1.0                                 |
   | :validate          | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:validate: |
   |                    | 1.0                                          |
   | :startup           | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:startup:1 |
   |                    | .0                                           |
   | :url               | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:url:1.0   |
   | :xpath             | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:xpath:1.0 |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+

   Index value: The capability name.

10.4.  NETCONF Enterprise Capability URNs

   This document requests that IANA create a registry for allocating
   NETCONF capability identifiers to enterprises.  Allocation from the
   registry is on a First Come First Served basis, but a specification
   is required in the form of Appendix C of this document.

   Following the guidelines in RFC 3553 [7], IANA is requested to assign
   a NETCONF sub-namespace as follows:

   Registry name: netconf-enterprise

   Specification: To be provided by the registrant.  The specification
   document must conform to Appendix C of this document.

   Repository: IANA is requested to store the submitted specifications
   in a public location such as
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/netconf/capabilities.html.

   Index value: The capability name. 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:21:14 +0100

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Rob Enns
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 03:03
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: IANA considerations update for NETCONF protocol draft
> 
> 
I think we rather see IETF Standards Action.
IETF consensus is a bit vague in fact.
Standards Action clearly includes IETF Consensus.

More below.

> Could the WG review this and comment?

"approval by a WG" does not mean IETF consensus. IETF Consensus includes
some for of "IETF Last Call". For stds track documents that happens 
automacally, and they get much better review than a "IETF Consnens Last Call
for an informational or experimental.
So that is why I think I prefer "Standards Action".

>    NETCONF, this sub-namespace may be used for additional purposes.
I think last sentence can go away, because defining the registry and
requiring Standards Action (or IETF consensus if that is what the WG
wants) basically allow for that Netconf impact anyway.

>    Repository: The following table.

.. snip ..

>    is required in the form of Appendix C of this document.

Mmm the template in appendix C looks (to me anyway) a template to
register new entries in the "standards" space, not in the vendor 
or enterprise space. Or am I missing something?

I think we need 2 templates, no?

Bert