Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Thu, 29 August 2013 12:51 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7633721F9F50; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 RqD3BstNMqy2; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EAC21F9F23; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id c11so370134wgh.3 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=NSNHutGeSCDbwOw4EiFesN2iJUHusMjEDKPGOP4qRq0=; b=nYJ4VSPfngbaH7A+pH7D+lF+mJNBPoE9p6Sq/sANrczhoK9infBoBkcgJh0jKlUVNX 9durBlWrvOw5kco99xbaX0n1y52YOek1rxGDCC6hzj6soJfnGfCnJxXknWd5YFQWv4xs lKkd7gJkF3HkpFMVFQDtKGkYDJXEsXRYbpkKBOQtEO/Uy7CY/v6HhCzaTEodsGzjg5e1 5F0TRjHFsxODX5cRmjVROpuQBpA6rp+yQi+9UYLG4PQQSqvG0AjU3+j718pC1rouXvok 3hujde3EnnfWEPnyRGxuTbv2K6EXSl+yEENS/R11BkzBR/Hwa+5E0WZidraJ1+TTpqqS PeBQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.123.164 with SMTP id mb4mr2716426wjb.84.1377780701483; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-109-67-221-133.red.bezeqint.net. [109.67.221.133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v9sm12246255wiw.8.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE255C28238@szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE255C284D5@szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com> <04cf01cea499$22eb4a80$68c1df80$@gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE255C285CA@szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com> <04d701cea4a1$f8fdde00$eaf99a00$@gmail.com> <521F3489.1060600@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <521F3489.1060600@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:49:03 +0300
Message-ID: <04f301cea4b6$2a282440$7e786cc0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFOtCz/kupT/msuDkJxBc8cYmi4kAJrrZpSAxjw2zQBgMlGEQLYu/AFAg83QJWaTJj8EA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, 'Mach Chen' <mach.chen@huawei.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:51:45 -0000
Hi, This is OK . I have no concerns Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu] > Sent: 29 August, 2013 2:46 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: 'Mach Chen'; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp- > ping.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp- > ping-12 > > Roni, > > tnx - the authors should add words in the IANA section requesting that IANA > add this the pointed in the registry; they normally do anyway, but writing it > down should not be a problem. > > As for "Vendor Private" RFC 4379 says: > > "Values from "Vendor Private" ranges MUST NOT be registered with IANA; > however, the message MUST contain an enterprise code as registered > with the IANA SMI Private Network Management Private Enterprise > Numbers. For each name space that has a Vendor Private range, it > must be specified where exactly the SMI Private Enterprise Number > resides; see below for examples. In this way, several enterprises > (vendors) can use the same code point without fear of collision." > > The way I read this is that the paragraph does two things (1) defines the > allocation policy (in this case that "vendor private" won't be assigned by > IANA) and (2) put a restriction on the "vendor private" > (sub-)TLVs; they must contain a "private enterprise number". > > Up to now I've thought the restriction on the format was global for all > "vendor private" sub-TLVs that are used by TLV for LSP Ping. > However we put words to the same effect in e.g. 6424, wo there is no reason > not to do it here also. A pointer to RFC4379 should be enough > e.g.: > > "For the vendor private sub-TLVs defined for this document, the same > allocation policies and requirement on the sub-TLV format that is specified > for vendor private sub-TLVs in RFC4379 [RFC4379] appliacable." > > Would that cover you concern? > > /Loa > > > > On 2013-08-29 12:24, Roni Even wrote: > > Hi, > > This text is OK if one wants to implement this draft. > > My concern was about the consistency of the IANA registration so that > > if someone defines a new TLV type 1 based on RFC4379, IANA will know > > that it must update also the registry for TLV type 21. If you see no > > such problem, I have no concerns Roni > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mach Chen [mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com] > >> Sent: 29 August, 2013 1:05 PM > >> To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp- > >> ping.all@tools.ietf.org > >> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of > > draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp- > >> ping-12 > >> > >> Hi Roni, > >> > >> How about this: > >> > >> " 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 and kept the same > >> as that for TLV Type 1. All sub-TLVs in these ranges (include existing > >> and future defined) defined for TLV Type 1 apply to TLV Type 21. > >> Assignments of sub-..." > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Mach > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:21 PM > >>> To: Mach Chen; > >>> draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org > >>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org > >>> Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of > >>> draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12 > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> I am not sure you responded to my latest email. > >>> > >>> Having the policy for TLV type 1 here is not enough in my view since > >>> I only look at RFC4379 and create a new TLV type I will not know > >>> that I have to register it also for the type 21 if it will not be > >>> mentioned > >>> > >>> As for the vendor specific see my other email Roni > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Mach Chen [mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com] > >>>> Sent: 29 August, 2013 11:33 AM > >>>> To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp- > >>>> ping.all@tools.ietf.org > >>>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of > >>> draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp- > >>>> ping-12 > >>>> > >>>> Hi Roni, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your detailed review and comments! > >>>> > >>>> Please see my reply inline... > >>>> > >>>>> From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:06 PM > >>>>> To: > >>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org > >>>>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.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 > > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-re… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpl… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpl… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpl… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpl… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpl… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpl… Mach Chen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpl… Mach Chen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpl… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-mpls… t.p.
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-mpls… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-mpls… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-mpls… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-mpls… Jari Arkko