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

Hi Tom,
Many thanks for your comments!
Please see my reply inline with [Mach]

Best regards,
Mach

________________________________________
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of t.p. [daedulus@btconnect.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 2:05
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03.txt>        (LabelSwitched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs)        toProposed Standard

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

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.

[Mach] Since draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping has already defined the rule and policy on how to inhirent the sub-TLVs from type 1 TLV, IMHO, here it may be no need to explicitly mention how to registry the sub-TLVs for Type 21. So, how about this:
"The following Sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two additions, are made for TLV Type 1."

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.

[Mach] As Loa pointed out, the current IANA registry for Type 21 TLV is not reflecting the proposal in [draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping]. 

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.

[Mach] This is intended for the Type 21 TLV to have a common part code range shared with Type 1 TLV and a TLV specific code range for its own dedicaed sub-TLV. I think we should have an agreement on this solution :-)

Best regards,
Mach

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
>