Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: (with COMMENT)

Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> Sat, 21 November 2015 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639EB1ACED7; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:06:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxwdTA-XBU_5; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:06:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE0D41ACED1; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:06:54 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f799d6d000000ec2-88-565052cf6af8
Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6F.E5.03778.FC250565; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 12:17:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 12:06:52 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRIOUWp3deIamSYEiyj0Ywbq7xyp6gSaqggANREhCAAL9BgIACYDOw
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:06:51 +0000
Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221946B97@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <20151117030721.22342.71025.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1122193D907@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1122194430C@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <B1067C0E-FF03-452F-BAFB-73AD4162801D@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <B1067C0E-FF03-452F-BAFB-73AD4162801D@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221946B97eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA12Se0hTYRjG+XbOzjmuBl9z5ptmwUmLsotKl1WmQRQjqCzJwIJadDDTlm1q VyISM0tFcZaeyhmtizNWs6KylTXCUists2iFXRxeciXaRcySds6ZIP33e7/3eW8PH0Oo+qgg Jlmfzhn0ulSWUpDFGY61s5rXxSVEFD+iNObcRlrzuHW35nXVA1JT+qeI0NhaGiiN60KlXPP3 8ityKa21WAZl2jdHWmktf8dNxhGJiuhtXGpyJmeYE7NFsT337Ssy7dmKvb/Kr8gOI1P0ceTH AJ4L/b+qCYnHQ3PbVeo4UjAq/AiB9Vi2XAouIcixlooqCkdBlz2PFliNWejMukkKIgJnEeB5 6kFCwh/vgJp8q0wSpUBvTaevYAXcGswWmcRh4Dx1VmQlXgUmu803ehhBT8FLuZDww7GQ7+wm BUbe/QYarohNCRwILrdZJu2thk8vGimJA6C7fVguMQt9Q2Za0ieDpfgaJQ0bB/VlbrIQBfCj WvGjZPwomfQ+Eyru9lMSh8PFcz2ExBPhekku4kUDshF8zb1P8+IRNxD8bSqjpMCO4KjN7gvK ZGCvGpJJgUUGlaZ7NC86Oxn6czrFxmocD3fe/UHSkP1woqtU7OuPSxBUn+wSAzXmEWS1lJO8 z1pL0yfxDMHaM3kPvdWM94xQKHLohWcVjoESh0uUjxj7vwPgvdRTdNrHS+BGxwdaYgwWRxPB jzJZ2AFw7Rj4XvhOLswSftOQXXQ1AG+C8vNWStKvhG89Np97EdD73OxzbzEMtnfSFYi1IibD yGXuTIqKqEbez18H1KzbyNG90Ikwg9ixyrR5axJUcl2mcd9OJwr1ln6+VtWMgkj9Lj3HqpVb KuISVMptun37OcOuzYaMVM7oRMEMyQYqay0f1qtwki6dS+G4NM4wkpUxfkGHUfC05Qvm1RTe NPVFJgeb5rNtu6Nb/RbNphPfhyu+hNa3U09swS3xdbbVZEPMnnh0YKpZG59wyOaeRh5MnMCH XSgqyP/ZOnCs7ZQ7atF0/6iOyvoSY1JX7YaP9/KGl/2IPbB147oj9QN1no1cFvQOun43TfEs 0YaH9IdMcjm/7p0ay5LG7brIGYTBqPsHSfbJCgQEAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/2CZfxnc81hcq6ZSB5Q6FVcfx8yw>
Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.all@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "rcallon@juniper.net" <rcallon@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:06:57 -0000

Hi Ben,
thank you for your consideration. We, authors of this document, had discussed the allocation policy question and agreed that it would be appropriate to have broader discussion as part of 4379bis work. Loa had sent the mail on the subject (attached).

	Regards,
		Greg                                                                                               

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky
Cc: The IESG; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.all@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org; rcallon@juniper.net; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for the response. Please see below (I removed sections that don't seem to need further discussion.)

Thanks!

Ben.

On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:19, Gregory Mirsky wrote:

[...]

>
> I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits:
>
> Comment:
> =========
> - 4.1, paragraph 3:
> Is it reasonable for a TLV in this standards-action registry to be 
> have sub-tlvs with reduced registration requirements?  (And if so, is 
> there a reason to exclude specifications that are not RFCs?)
> GIM>> Yes. This is how it is done for all standard track registry TLVs
> for the entire LSP ping.

Okay,

> And yes we want RFCs to define the sub-TLVs (if the come out of the 
> Specification need range) just because they go into a standard track 
> specified TLV.

That would make sense to me for a standards-action requirement. But 
requiring experimental RFCs seems to narrow down the options a lot, 
while keeping the bar fairly low. That seems more like a procedural hoop 
than a check on spec maturity.

In any case, I leave it to the proponents to do the Right Thing, even if 
the right thing means ignoring my comment :-)


[...]
--- Begin Message ---
Authors, (chair hat tipped a bit)

During the IESG review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf we
got the foloowing comment on allocation policies. Since the comment is
on a LSP Ping wide policy, we have not thought we should make a local
change in allocation policies for 
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf, but if a change is needed or 
wanted we think the right place
to consider it whould be  4379bis.

Can you take a look at this ans see if a change is needed/wanted.

/Loa


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: (with COMMENT)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:42:41 -0600
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
CC: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org 
<draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org>rg>, mpls@ietf.org 
<mpls@ietf.org>rg>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.all@ietf.org 
<draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.all@ietf.org>rg>, 
mpls-chairs@ietf.org <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, 
rcallon@juniper.net <rcallon@juniper.net>

Thanks for the response. Please see below (I removed sections that don't
seem to need further discussion.)

Thanks!

Ben.

On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:19, Gregory Mirsky wrote:

[...]

>
> I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits:
>
> Comment:
> =========
> - 4.1, paragraph 3:
> Is it reasonable for a TLV in this standards-action registry to be
> have sub-tlvs with reduced registration requirements?  (And if so, is
> there a reason to exclude specifications that are not RFCs?)
> GIM>> Yes. This is how it is done for all standard track registry TLVs
> for the entire LSP ping.

Okay,

> And yes we want RFCs to define the sub-TLVs (if the come out of the
> Specification need range) just because they go into a standard track
> specified TLV.

That would make sense to me for a standards-action requirement. But
requiring experimental RFCs seems to narrow down the options a lot,
while keeping the bar fairly low. That seems more like a procedural hoop
than a check on spec maturity.

In any case, I leave it to the proponents to do the Right Thing, even if
the right thing means ignoring my comment :-)


[...]

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64


--- End Message ---