Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-05

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 04/08/2014 18:16, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
Hi Donald,
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Alexey Melnikov
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 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-trill-loss-delay-05
>> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
>> Review Date: 3 August 2014
>> IETF LC End Date: 21 July 2014
>> IESG Telechat date: 7 August 2014
>>
>> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC.
>> [Ready with nits]
>>
>> Major issues: None
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> Section 6.4: who allocated opcodes? I.e. is there a registry?
> These OAM OpCodes were created by and originally all under the control
> of IEEE 802.1; however, 802.1 allocated the block of 32 OpCodes from
> 32 to 63 to ITU-T as documented in [802.1Q]. I don't think ITU-T
> maintains an explicit registry other than the listing of assigned
> OpCodes out of their range that appears in [Y.1731] but I could be
> wrong.
>
> Perhaps a sentence could be added to the end of Section 6.4 such as
> "These OpCodes are from the range of values that has been allocated by
> IEEE 802.1 [802.1Q] for control by ITU-T."
I think that would be very helpful. Otherwise there is a question why 
there is no IANA registry for these and your extra sentence would 
address that.
>> Nits:
>>
>> I think it would be better to say that all "Reserved" fields are set to 0 by
>> the sender and ignored by the receiver.
> I'll check with the other authors on that.
Thank you.