Hi Loa,
See inline
Roni
-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu]
Sent: 28 August, 2013 5:20 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc:
draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
gen-
art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-
ping-12
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.
[Roni Even] I think that the directive for future allocation must be clear
both in the IANA registry and the document for example look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6426#section-7.3
I also think that is this case this document updates RFC4379 .
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.>
[Roni Even] RFC4379 says
"If a TLV or sub-TLV has a Type that falls in the range for Vendor
Private Use, the Length MUST be at least 4, and the first four octets
MUST be that vendor's SMI Private Enterprise Number, in network octet
order. The rest of the Value field is private to the vendor."
/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