Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

["Shah, Himanshu" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ralph -

You make a good point on the sub-TLV.
I have talked to my WG chairs and we are going to change the text based on your suggestion.
I will remove the MAC Withdraw sub-TLV registry for sequence number TLV and instead use the
Value from the LDP Type values (same as MAC List TLV).

As for combining text of section 3 and 4.1.

Section 3 described the packet fields, including the sequence number text.
The reason for sequence number text is - that it is applicable to both;
Sender (section 4.1) and Receiver (section 4.2).

I will explore to remove the overlap..

Thanks,
Himanshu


-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:13 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu
Cc: Andrew G. Malis; A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team; [e-mail]; The IESG
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

Himanshu - I've been tied up in meetings most of the day today and am about to go into more meetings that will last until the end of the day.

I reviewed your revised draft briefly and it mostly looks OK.  I have one substantive comment, which is about an issue I didn't notice until now:

How is the Mac Withdraw sub-TLV registry from which the "Sequence Number" code point is taken differentiated from the LDP Parameters sub-TLV registry from which the "MAC List" and "MAC Flush Parameter" code points are taken?  In other words, how does the receciver know to interpret the code point on the Sequence Number TLV as a code point in the Mac Withdraw sub-TLV registry while the code points on the MAC List TLV and the MAC Flush Paramter TLV are interpreted as code points in the LDP Paramteres sub-TLV?  Shouldn't all the code points on the TLVs in this message come from a single registry?

I also have an editorial comment from my earlier review: the ifrst paragraph of section 3 is mostly redundant with section 4.1 and that text in section 3 should be merged into the text in section 4.1

- Ralph

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 2:09 PM 10/26/15, Shah, Himanshu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Andy.
> He did re-send the email without MIME and I was able to read and reply.
>  
> Thanks,
> Himanshu
>  
> From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:08 PM
> To: Shah, Himanshu
> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team; [e-mail]; The IESG
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd
>  
> Himanshu,
>  
> Ralph said:
>  
> Himanshu - I've received your revised draft.  I've been stuck in a variety of meetings Monday and haven't had time to review it.  I should be able to look at it before the end of the day.
> 
> - Ralph
>  
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Shah, Himanshu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Can you send the email without MIME signature?
>  
> Thanks,
> Himanshu
>  
> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:02 PM
> To: Shah, Himanshu
> Cc: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team; [e-mail]; The IESG
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd