Roni,
Thanks for an insightful review, you have captured much of what we
been struggling with when it comes to the IANA allocations.
On 2013-08-28 15:06, Roni Even wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I am not clear on the sub-TLV in section 6.2
1. If a new sub-TLV is defined for TLV type 1 do they need also to be
added to TLV type 21.
Yes the document says "Directly copied from TLV Type 1, MUST NOT be
assigned" the intention is that this applies to future sub-TLVs also.
I guess it could be changed to "Directly copied from TLV Type 1
(including future allocations for TLV Type 1, MUST NOT be assigned"
if that makes thing clearer.
This should be clear, and if there is some
relation I think it should be reflected in the IANA registry for TLV
type 1
I guess that makes sense - but it has not been the what we've done
earlier - I think we could add this where needed by directly
communicate this to IANA.
2. For the vendor or private use why a difference policy than the rest
of the sub-TLV registry
We don't assign vendor private use at all, so by default it is
different. I don't see that it could be different.
/Loa
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 3.4 I assume that “TC” is traffic class. It will be good
to expand and have reference.
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64