Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)

"Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com> Mon, 08 December 2014 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <hejia@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7731A6FE0; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 23:30:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id efw09rw-XOtA; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 23:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11ED81A6FDF; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 23:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BMO81575; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 07:30:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 07:30:26 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA507-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.247]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 15:30:21 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com" <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)
Thread-Index: AQG4SRPFXWGhuDh/2iDRqFsJvZBrd5ywq2ZggAQz+pA=
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 07:30:21 +0000
Message-ID: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551B22454@szxema507-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <20140908192308.6BD2B180015@rfc-editor.org> <11ca01d010a2$fff2c130$ffd84390$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <11ca01d010a2$fff2c130$ffd84390$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.76.169]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551B22454szxema507mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/zmqCbfVxEK5rMPmkw1FV-Ym_mfs
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "akatlas@gmail.com" <akatlas@gmail.com>, "dbrungard@att.com" <dbrungard@att.com>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 07:30:32 -0000

Adrian,

I'm OK with your proposal.

B.R.
Jia

From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:49 PM
To: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org; attila.takacs@ericsson.com; don.fedyk@hp.com; Hejia (Jia); akatlas@gmail.com; lberger@labn.net; dbrungard@att.com
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)


Hi Greg,



I'm returning to this after an indecent interval.



I checked with IANA and they are OK that we can make this sort of change with an Errata Report and they are happy.



So now we have to agree what it should say.



There is an error in your suggested change, I think because in the first table you show 65533 as IETF review, and in the second as reserved for experimentation.



I am keen to make only the minimal changes to fix the obvious bugs. Therefore I think there is no need to reserve 65535 and it can remain as an experimental value.



That leaves us with...



    IANA has created the "OAM Sub-TLVs" sub-registry of the "RSVP-TE OAM

    Configuration Registry" as follows:



    Range       | Note                         | Registration Procedures

    ------------+------------------------------|------------------------

    0-31        | Generic Sub-TLVs             | IETF Review

   32-65533    | Technology-specific Sub-TLVs | IETF Review

    65534-65535 | Experimental Sub-TLVs        | Reserved for

                                               |   Experimental Use



    IANA has populated the registry as follows:



       Sub-TLV Type | Description                   | Reference

       -------------+-------------------------------+----------

           0        | Reserved                      | [RFC7260]

           1        | OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV    | [RFC7260]

           2-65533  | Unassigned                    |

       65534-65535  | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC7260]



Is everyone OK with that change?



Thanks,

Adrian