Subject: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:53:03 +0100

Hi Martin, netmod participants,

- IANAifType-MIB http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xml
There is a new value 273, which should be added to the draft, at first 
glance.
Note: this entry 273 is called "Reserved". This is a weird name, because 
there is RFC6825 next to it.
Am I correct that, if a second entry is called "Reserved", the enum 
would break?

- Actually, in SAFI, we have the issue of multiple "Reserved"
And I see that you have not modeled those "Reserved" entries.
Surely because the enum would actually break.
Clarifying question: Is this the right thing to do?

Coming back to this entry 273 called "Reserved" in ifType, maybe the 
issue comes from the fact that IANA should have given a more meaningful 
name than "reserved". Maybe 'reserved-for-RFC6825", but that's a 
different story.

- I don't see anything in the IANA considerations section regarding what 
to do for "reserved".
Let's assume that this value 273 is added now in IANAifType-MIB, it's 
not clear from the text below what should IANA do with this YANG module:

    When an interface type is added to this registry, a new "enum"
    statement must be added to the "iana-if-type" typedef, with the same
    name and value as the corresponding enumeration in IANAifType-MIB.
    If the new interface type has a reference, a new "reference"
    statement should be added to the new "enum" statement. If an
    interface type is deprecated in the "ifType definitions" registry,
    the corresponding "enum" statement must be updated with a "status"
    statement with the value "deprecated".

Maybe the solution is that we don't want to register the "reserved" 
value ... when pointing to the initial RFC that created the registry.

- Same remark about "reserved" for SAFI

If those issues have been discussed on the mailing list in the past, let 
me know.

Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:49:15 +0100

> Am I correct that, if a second entry is called "Reserved", the enum 

Yes.

> Clarifying question: Is this the right thing to do?

I think it is, as long as "reserved" means that it cannot be used in a configuration.

> name than "reserved". Maybe 'reserved-for-RFC6825", but that's a 

Perhaps even IANA couldn't figure out a more descriptive name. :-)
 
> value ... when pointing to the initial RFC that created the registry.

Yes, my understanding is that "reserved" doesn't mean a type registration, but of course the case you mentioned looks a bit special.

> If those issues have been discussed on the mailing list in the past, let 

No, I don't think so.

Lada

>
> Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:18:50 +0100 (CET)

Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> - IANAifType-MIB
> - http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xml
> Note: this entry 273 is called "Reserved". This is a weird name,
> because there is RFC6825 next to it.

Agreed.  But since this value is not in reflected in IANAifType-MIB, I
assume that the value really is just reserved for future use.

So I don't think there is anything for us to update right now, do you
agree?

/martin

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:14:25 +0100 (CET)

> assume that the value really is just reserved for future use.

BTW, I found the answer to this reservation here:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xml#smi-numbers-7

  Note
    For every transmission number registration, the corresponding
    ifType value should be registered or marked "Reserved."

(there is a corresponding rule for the reverse mapping:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xml#smi-numbers-5)

/martin