From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Dec 12 07:09:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D9721F8A26; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:09:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id btZvYEA2kWFd; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72FDF21F89B5; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:09:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBCF920c003427; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:09:02 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBCF91bZ003421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:09:02 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:08:59 -0000 Message-ID: <096201cdd87a$9dad1c30$d9075490$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3Yelk0p48LLB7aTlyI0Hmh1/ybOg== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: iesg@ietf.org Subject: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:09:09 -0000 Hi RSVP-Directorate, The IESG is looking at draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te during IESG evaluation and post-IESTF last call. The document is intended to be Experimental, and wants to carry out its experiment by adding some CTypes to existing CNums. However, the IANA registry observes... > For Class Numbers that pre-date [RFC3936] (specifically, 0, 1, 3-25, > 30-37, 42-45, 64, 65, 128-131, 161-165, 192-196, and 207), the > default assignment policy for new Class Types is Standards Action, > unless a Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFC supercedes this. What is your view of the intention? Is the purpose to block experimentation on existing CNums? How should experiments be carried out? An option, I suppose is to replicate the CNums into Experimental CNums and include the experimental CTypes there. Thanks, Adrian From lberger@labn.net Wed Dec 12 10:07:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DB121E80E7 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:07:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O2yIjFw+MBYE for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com [69.89.22.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D03E21E805A for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:07:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 30150 invoked by uid 0); 12 Dec 2012 18:06:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2012 18:06:38 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=gIHDrN1RxaOzv08Vi3PhsxzIq0IxO3Vhgm5eokw7/xU=; b=vLTpH9CXO9sSR0W7Mt4Z9cU8AJH0XJZ/LmTV+SQV+p1BFhMJt8Yq2q1O8vKx27o42sKZRnyMWUQ28qfEBxqAav9223VaYcse8DXWwdH396skB2gsTRXFDSHPMsN53+oy; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:44477 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tiqha-0002PN-O0; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:06:38 -0700 Message-ID: <50C8C7AD.1050407@labn.net> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:06:37 -0500 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <096201cdd87a$9dad1c30$d9075490$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <096201cdd87a$9dad1c30$d9075490$@olddog.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Cc: iesg@ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:07:05 -0000 Adrian, Is this a general question or one that is focused on a specific experiment? If an experiment is to take place privately, as this one is, is there any need for an assignment? Lou On 12/12/2012 10:08 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi RSVP-Directorate, > > The IESG is looking at draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te during IESG evaluation > and post-IESTF last call. > > The document is intended to be Experimental, and wants to carry out its > experiment by adding some CTypes to existing CNums. However, the IANA registry > observes... > >> For Class Numbers that pre-date [RFC3936] (specifically, 0, 1, 3-25, >> 30-37, 42-45, 64, 65, 128-131, 161-165, 192-196, and 207), the >> default assignment policy for new Class Types is Standards Action, >> unless a Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFC supercedes this. > > What is your view of the intention? Is the purpose to block experimentation on > existing CNums? How should experiments be carried out? > > An option, I suppose is to replicate the CNums into Experimental CNums and > include the experimental CTypes there. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ > rsvp-dir mailing list > rsvp-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir > > > > From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Dec 12 10:13:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F324421F88A7; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:13:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ag6NpLhMhwuq; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88C321F889C; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:13:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBCIDpuU029636; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:13:51 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBCIDokh029623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:13:51 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Lou Berger'" References: <096201cdd87a$9dad1c30$d9075490$@olddog.co.uk> <50C8C7AD.1050407@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <50C8C7AD.1050407@labn.net> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:13:48 -0000 Message-ID: <09d101cdd894$6f4ab9a0$4de02ce0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJX2XRHeySJav+drd/UQIT+bKpQMAJGDaUWlu9E1BA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: iesg@ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:13:55 -0000 Hi Lou, Well, obviously I want to resolve this particular document, but it would be nice to use the generic solution. All experiments are in some sense private. The pint of experimental code point ranges is to describe what happens when the code points are seen in the wild and to discourage squatting. It sounds like what you are suggesting is that they should not document values and, within the limits of their experiment, they should squat on some values. A > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: 12 December 2012 18:07 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes > > Adrian, > Is this a general question or one that is focused on a specific > experiment? If an experiment is to take place privately, as this one > is, is there any need for an assignment? > > Lou > > On 12/12/2012 10:08 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi RSVP-Directorate, > > > > The IESG is looking at draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te during IESG evaluation > > and post-IESTF last call. > > > > The document is intended to be Experimental, and wants to carry out its > > experiment by adding some CTypes to existing CNums. However, the IANA > registry > > observes... > > > >> For Class Numbers that pre-date [RFC3936] (specifically, 0, 1, 3-25, > >> 30-37, 42-45, 64, 65, 128-131, 161-165, 192-196, and 207), the > >> default assignment policy for new Class Types is Standards Action, > >> unless a Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFC supercedes this. > > > > What is your view of the intention? Is the purpose to block experimentation on > > existing CNums? How should experiments be carried out? > > > > An option, I suppose is to replicate the CNums into Experimental CNums and > > include the experimental CTypes there. > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rsvp-dir mailing list > > rsvp-dir@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir > > > > > > > > From lberger@labn.net Wed Dec 12 12:31:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA23521F8A41 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:31:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.881, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyQgS5U1i1o8 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:31:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com [50.87.16.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CFEB421F88E4 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:31:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12081 invoked by uid 0); 12 Dec 2012 20:30:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy12.bluehost.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2012 20:30:18 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=lXzVYw6cBubLHoq0V9c6xR1MgZza6YprEBl7dKDs5tU=; b=JYmQX8nhsAK8diu7lKkq2lSNkmRn6+Tpnqzqjf/PQ1qHoCqCr+FcdkszypsMHjhfcO3vQSLjA5SQPHdlkZ5Wu6J3oe87huasi4AZPhQtNEioQeVI27aHXINPHbFeSsp3; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:45482 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tiswc-0000uK-Df; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:30:18 -0700 Message-ID: <50C8E959.2040707@labn.net> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:30:17 -0500 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <096201cdd87a$9dad1c30$d9075490$@olddog.co.uk> <50C8C7AD.1050407@labn.net> <09d101cdd894$6f4ab9a0$4de02ce0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <09d101cdd894$6f4ab9a0$4de02ce0$@olddog.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Cc: iesg@ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:31:09 -0000 Fair enough. My feeling is that assignment should be informed based on the expected scope of the experiment. Something that is likely to have wide experimental usage, is documented in an RFC, and has a possible outcome of moving to standards track seems like a good candidate for an 'experimental assignment'. Something that is likely to be implemented by 1 (or 2) independent implementations, is also documented in an RFC, and will only be used in a tightly controlled environment, IMO, has no reason to use assigned code points. I think this specific case is easy, but you already know what I think of this document... Does this help at all? Lou On 12/12/2012 1:13 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Lou, > > Well, obviously I want to resolve this particular document, but it would be nice > to use the generic solution. > > All experiments are in some sense private. The pint of experimental code point > ranges is to describe what happens when the code points are seen in the wild and > to discourage squatting. > > It sounds like what you are suggesting is that they should not document values > and, within the limits of their experiment, they should squat on some values. > > A > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >> Sent: 12 December 2012 18:07 >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk >> Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes >> >> Adrian, >> Is this a general question or one that is focused on a specific >> experiment? If an experiment is to take place privately, as this one >> is, is there any need for an assignment? >> >> Lou >> >> On 12/12/2012 10:08 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>> Hi RSVP-Directorate, >>> >>> The IESG is looking at draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te during IESG > evaluation >>> and post-IESTF last call. >>> >>> The document is intended to be Experimental, and wants to carry out its >>> experiment by adding some CTypes to existing CNums. However, the IANA >> registry >>> observes... >>> >>>> For Class Numbers that pre-date [RFC3936] (specifically, 0, 1, 3-25, >>>> 30-37, 42-45, 64, 65, 128-131, 161-165, 192-196, and 207), the >>>> default assignment policy for new Class Types is Standards Action, >>>> unless a Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFC supercedes this. >>> >>> What is your view of the intention? Is the purpose to block experimentation > on >>> existing CNums? How should experiments be carried out? >>> >>> An option, I suppose is to replicate the CNums into Experimental CNums and >>> include the experimental CTypes there. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Adrian >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rsvp-dir mailing list >>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > >