Hi Roni,
Thanks for your detailed review and comments!
Please see my reply inline...
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:06 PM
To:
draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12
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
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-8-28
IETF LC End Date: 2013-9-4
IESG Telechat date:
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.
This should be clear, and if there is some relation I think it should
be reflected in the IANA registry for TLV type 1
Yes, type 21 TLV intends to reuse existing and future defined sub-TLVs for type
TLV 1. And in Section 3.3, it has already stated this, it says:
"The Target FEC sub-TLVs defined in [RFC4379] provide a good way to
identify a specific return path. The Reply Path TLV can carry any
sub-TLV defined for use in the Target FEC Stack TLV that can be
registered."
So, for Section 6.2, to make it cleaner and more explicit, how about this
change:
Old:
" No assignments of sub-TLVs in the range of 0-16383 and 32768-49161
are made directly for TLV Type 21, sub-TLVs in these ranges are
copied from the assignments made for TLV Type 1. Assignments of sub-..."
New:
" No assignments of sub-TLVs in the range of 0-16383 and 32768-49161
are made directly for TLV Type 21, sub-TLVs in these ranges are
copied from the assignments (including existing and future allocations)
made for TLV Type 1. Assignments of sub-..."
2. For the vendor or private use why a difference policy than the rest
of the sub-TLV registry
This document does not make any changes to the "Vendor and Private use"
definition, range and policy as defined in RFC4379. In RFC4379, it's policy is
defined different from other ranges.
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 3.4 I assume that "TC" is traffic class. It will be good
to expand and have reference.
OK, will fix it when all last call comments received.
Best regards,
Mach