Re: [mpls] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:14:19AM -0800, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> There may be a couple of internal (or external?) inconsistencies
> lingering, and while my confidence level of that is not as high as it
> often is, it's probably still worth checking.
> Specifics in the COMMENT, but at a high level, do we use ACH value
> 0x000A (what's shown in Section 9) or the TBD IANA-allocated values; we
> seem to refer to RFC 6374 as providing some things that I can't find in
> it; and the IANA considerations registration request includes a "TLV
> follows" column that does not appear to be present in the registry (and
> does not appear to match the described behavior in the rest of the
> document).  Perhaps this (the current registry state) is the result of
> RFC 7026's actions, but I'm not entirely sure.

I happened to catch my eye on a bit in RFC 7026 while closing browser tabs,
and I have a little better understanding of what happened here.  (Probably
not perfect, but better.)

The TLVs in question in RFC 7026 (and the registry template from RFC 5586
that this document was following) here are not TLVs that are part of the ACH message
themself (as is the case for the ones we define here), but rather TLVs
between the GAL+ACH entries and the actual G-ACh message.  So, it's correct
that this document's G-ACh types don't have any TLVs that follow, since no
G-ACh types do or will in the future, after RFC 7026 removed them entirely.
But we probably don't need to mention that in the IANA Considerations,
either.

Sorry for the confusion.

-Ben