Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

And thanks Meral for the review
And thanks Bruno for the response with which I agree.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 05 March 2015 11:09
> To: [e-mail]; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02
> 
> Folks,
> 
> When I sent the question I intended to send it to the authors only,
> but only change the "name" of the receiver (removed .all) and let the
> .all stay in the actual mail address, so we have been spreading this a
> bit wider than intended. So I put all the initial mail addresses back.
> 
> However, I agree with Bruno's responses. The difference between "not
> assigned" and "reserved" is a Bruno put it.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 2015-03-05 17:55, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi Loa, all,
> >
> > Please see inline [Bruno] the proposed resolution
> >
> >> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]] > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015
8:19
> AM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-
> >> 02
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Did we respond to the Gen ART review?
> >
> > [Bruno] Not yet.
> >
> >> /Loa
> >>
> >> On 2015-03-05 03:03, Meral Shirazipour 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
> >> posting a new version of the draft.
> >>>
> >>> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02
> >>> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> >>> Review Date: 2015-03-04
> >>> IETF LC End Date: 2015-03-02?
> >>> IESG Telechat date: 2015-03-05
> >>>
> >>> Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I
> >> have some comments.
> >>>
> >>> Minor issues:
> >>> -[Page 3], Section 2.1, Table "Registry Name: DS Flags.". Is there a
reason bits
> >> 5-0 are listed as "Unassigned" and not "Reserved (MBZ)" ?, with Reference
> >> being RFC4379 Section 3.3.
> >
> > [Bruno] Indeed RFC4379 marks these flags as "Reserved".
> > However, my understanding is that in an IANA registry, "reserved" means that
> the IANA can't use it. While "Unassigned" means that the IANA is free to pick
a
> value and assign.
> > I think we do mean "Unassigned" as we want the IANA to be able to make
> assignment. (otherwise, there is no point in making a IANA registry)
> >
> >>>
> >>> -[Page 4], Section 2.3, Table "Registry Name: Pad Type.". RFC4379 did not
> >> reserve value 0. I could be wrong please double check.
> >
> > [Bruno] Indeed, RFC4379 does not talk about value 0. Probably an oversight.
> > IMHO it's better for this document to document value 0 (probably required by
> IANA). IMO making 0 "reserved" is the safest option.
> > At least the WG did not object/comment.
> > Hower the document indicates  "0    Reserved
RFC4379" and this
> is not strictly true that RFC 4379 is the reference for this value 0.
> > Hence I would propose
> > OLD:  0    Reserved                                 RFC4379
> > New:  0    Reserved                                 This document.
> >
> >>>
> >>> -[Page 5], Section 2.4, Table "Registry Name: Interface and Label Stack
> >> Address Type.". Same as above, RFC4379 did not reserve value 0.
> >
> > [Bruno] idem
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nits/editorial comments:
> >>> -[Page 2], Section 2.1, please put in parenthesis (DSMAP) and (DDMAP)
right
> >> after when the terms are spelled out. The acronyms are use later on.
> >
> > [Bruno] Yes. Thank you. Done in my local copy
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>> Meral
> >>> ---
> >>> Meral Shirazipour
> >>> Ericsson
> >>> Research
> >>> www.ericsson.com
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> >> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> >> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
> >
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
ce
> message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this
> message and its attachments.
> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> > Thank you.
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]