Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03.txt> (LabelSwitched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs) toProposed Standard

Tom,

On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:05 PM, t.p. <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:

> I worry about the allocation of sub-TLVs in this I-D.
> 

Thanks for the comments. I share worries about keeping synchronicity between sub-registries in this fashion.

> It calls for
> "The following Sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two
>   additions, are made for two TLV Types in the aforementioned sub-
>   registry: TLV Type 1 for "Target FEC Stack", and TLV Type 21 for
>   "Reply Path"."
> and it is the Type 21 that worries me.
> 

Right -- the allocations under Type 1 are straightforward. But the allocations under Type 21 seem to be standing over quicksand.

> IANA has, for Type 21,
> 
> Reply Path (TEMPORARY - expires 2012-01-20)
> [draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping]
> 
> and I am unclear what the rules are about updates to expired, TEMPORARY,
> allocations.
> 
> I worry too that
> [draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping]
> while confirming the reservation of Type 21 takes a different tack for
> sub-TLVs, namely
> "
> According to the guidelines defined in [RFC5226], the sub-TLV range
>   of Reply Path TLV are partitioned as following:
>   0-31743 - Reserved, and MUST NOT be allocated."
> so quite what this I-D will do to that I-D worries me.
> 

Perhaps the best approach is to decouple. Have all Type 21 allocations under draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping and have that point to the RFC from draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping if needed (and it can take a snapshot of the sub-registry when it will be stable.)

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

> And I worry yet more that other I-Ds, such as
> draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-00
> are heading down the track with further updates in this area of the MPLS
> namespace (except that this particular one seems to have abandoned
> sub-TLVs).
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:31 PM
> 
>> 
>> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching
> WG
>> (mpls) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs'
>>  <draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03.txt> as Proposed Standard
>> 
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-09. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>> 
>> Abstract
>> 
>>   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
> Ping
>>   and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate
>>   data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW)
> LSPs.
>>   The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified
>>   for IPv6 address usage.
>> 
>>   This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so
>>   they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379.
>> 
>> 
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/
>> 
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/ballot/
>> 
>> 
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> 
> 
> 