RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 29 August, 2013 1:05 PM
> To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:21 PM
> > To: Mach Chen;
> > [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 29 August, 2013 11:33 AM
> > > To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:06 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > 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