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

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

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