RE: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14.txt> (Updates to LDP for IPv6) to Proposed Standard

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 07 January 2015 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246821A1A5E; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 08:46:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 wEi_wy1z98JV; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 08:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 292241A00AE; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 08:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t07GkAep028416; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:46:10 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (089144212023.atnat0021.highway.a1.net [89.144.212.23]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t07Gk3VK028254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:46:10 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Aissaoui, Mustapha \(Mustapha\)'" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <20141204193700.25973.18733.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C1FD1@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C86E5@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C86E5@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14.txt> (Updates to LDP for IPv6) to Proposed Standard
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:46:02 -0000
Message-ID: <065001d02a99$70bf1c00$523d5400$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEavZr4LLvEoVKVBHX9h497xfv8bQIvycuoApIn9s6d+ZlW4A==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21232.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.827-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--9.827-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: L8tZF6zWW2ozx9GDMr0HvzYTypjB3iDVuikHZcC6ceAEgPcpc1tw6Fw9 Ld5cnKYUgADNzA1mkcUss6aOAqnY9aiX/8Y2seR/LNe+DcIJHlRReWnUUdhI9TPolapMwp0IKJj krG+1FfEcmDow06HKgcowTJnEdgrSxAFMYEMzeR0XrP0cYcrA2+Ae2rni5lNAV0aMY26wA5y/xi VRG8Gt83wB3gSA8cZDcp51Uxq7L6ucl7+trwU+WIdlc1JaOB1TnophrTcsI7abKItl61J/ycnjL TA/UDoAq61alUC6VkfkwjHXXC/4I7I7zVffJqTzIkJnsAqOgWszS9WNx152fXXnXcRx+KqGCUY9 4DFyv+myanhDJSlH7n7cGd19dSFd
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2d27hRrIYT6V9CJy5nCO-Ix9dHQ
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:46:25 -0000

Hi Mustapha,

> Can we also close on the IANA assignment for the new TLVs and specifically for
> the Dual-Stack Capability TLV?
> 
> I assume this will be drawn from the Common Hello Parameters range of the LDP
> TLV Type Name Space. The next available value is 0x0409. I appreciate if you
could
> confirm this value.

Are you asking for an early allocation of this code point?

The document has been through IETF last call and with a few edits will be ready
for processing by the IESG. After IESG approval, the IANA will make a
provisional allocation of a code point that will be confirmed on publication of
the RFC. The IANA is *likely* to allocate the next available value, but not if
another I-D gets there first :-)

Unless there is a reason for a rush, I suggest that we wait for normal process.
Constructive discussion of the remaining issues with this draft should enable
that to complete quickly.

Thanks,
Adrian