IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ANCP] draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06

Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <flefauch@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFB621F87BC for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.446, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8AcEcu5PBrcj for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B999121F87AA for <ancp@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=flefauch@cisco.com; l=4735; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1335441647; x=1336651247; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=rxOJeJWIhthvejniLHAACmwB36b5CQj7orLc0VKoSwM=; b=C0ePnsyaZ5F22j6BIOPZwTzs+V/lEALuUtGHrxYq5W/QFuX8ox+DAocA FwQrC7mWhVcNOmJWm7pK/31S5NfstybVpmDMSZL2eVgTE0p+ittRzsGKr L5ShpEt4a04qT8H+NQBRNnvEb07cnvxW5z8vsy+8VY1ERfGQH75XhDDpB U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,486,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="71823374"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2012 12:00:46 +0000
Received: from ams-flefauch-8712.cisco.com (ams-flefauch-8712.cisco.com [10.55.161.195]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3QC0j2Z016541; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:00:46 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_65BA4A5F-65B6-4DD7-B455-4158783CE86F"
From: Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CBBEC6E1.29CC8%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:00:40 +0200
Message-Id: <8848D605-B3EB-471E-8CEA-653CB7AE3A52@cisco.com>
References: <CBBEC6E1.29CC8%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" <ancp@ietf.org>, "ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ANCP] draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06
X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list <ancp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ancp>, <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp>
List-Post: <mailto:ancp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp>, <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:00:48 -0000

On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:38, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> It does seem to make sense to create a separate draft defining the error
> code and its associated handling if we think that it would be of use
> elsewhere and off it might be added to.
> 
> I propose the following way forward:
> 
> - Create a cleaned up version of the MC extensions draft
> - create a separate error codes draft
> - Run a short 1 week WG LC on the changes to the MC extensions draft.
> - WG LC the error codes draft once MC extensions has gone to the IESG.

Works for me.

Francois


> 
> Regards
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 25/04/2012 13:48, "Tom Taylor" <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I have finished my review of draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06.
>> Fortunately, I have not identified any further substantive issues other
>> than the two I reported to the list the other day, but I do propose
>> quite a few editorial changes. I could enumerate them if so desired.
>> 
>> I need direction going forward. Shall I update the document with all my
>> proposed changes and do a separate draft for the new 0x54 error code? I
>> could delete explicit reference to that code in the multicast extensions
>> draft, so we wouldn't have a dependency issue holding up publication.
>> Then the new error code draft could be held open if implementers think
>> they might come up with other base-level error codes.
>> 
>> Tom Taylor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ANCP mailing list
> ANCP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email