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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Roni,

Thanks for an insightful review, you have captured much of what we
been struggling with when it comes to the IANA allocations.

On 2013-08-28 15:06, Roni Even wrote:
> 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
> 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.

Yes the document says "Directly copied from TLV Type 1, MUST NOT be
assigned" the intention is that this applies to future sub-TLVs also.
I guess it could be changed to "Directly copied from TLV Type 1
(including future allocations for TLV Type 1, MUST NOT be assigned"
if that makes thing clearer.

>     This should be clear, and if there is some
>     relation I think it should be reflected in the IANA registry for TLV
>     type 1

I guess that makes sense - but it has not been the what we've done 
earlier - I think we could add this where needed by directly
communicate  this to IANA.

>  2. For the vendor or private use why a difference policy than the rest
>     of the sub-TLV registry

We don't assign vendor private use at all, so by default it is
different. I don't see that it could be different.

/Loa
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>  1. In section 3.4 I assume that “TC” is traffic class. It will be good
>     to expand and have reference.
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]