[mpls] draft-andersson-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01 - Updating the LSP Ping IANA registries

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Loa, Authors,

Please find comments and recommendations on, prefaced with “CMP":
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersson-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersson-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01> 


Updating the LSP Ping IANA registries

CMP: I would change the title to follow the actual name of the registration: “Updating IANA’s MPLS LSP Ping Parameters"


Abstract

   This document updates some registries in the LSP Ping IANA name
   space.  The updates are mostly for clarification and to align this
   registry with recent developments.


CMP: Similarly, s/LSP Ping/MPLS LSP Ping/ in the Abstract to match the registration.
CMP: Also, s/to align this registry/to align these registries/


Table of Contents

CMP: Editorial -> Arguably, the complete document is a set of “IANA Considerations”. That should be the main section encapsulating S2 and S3.

1.  Introduction


   When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] where published it contained among other

CMP: s/were published/was published/

   The LSP Ping IANA registries were partly updated to match RFC 8029,
   but the there were some ambiguity in the RFC, that were reflected in
   the registries.

CMP: s/were some ambiguity/was some ambiguity/.

CMP: However, I would not say there was “ambiguity”. I would instead write that the registrations can be further clarified and their definitions more precise.

   First the registries for Message Types [MessTypes], Reply Modes
   [re-Mode] and Return Codes [return-codes].  The changes to these
   registries are minor.


CMP: The anchor for all citations is confusing, and it gets mis-sorted. I recommend the following anchors throughout:


   OLD              NEW
  ----------------------------------
   [IANA-LSP-PING]  [IANA-LSP-PING]
   [MessTypes]      [IANA-MT]
   [re-Mode]        [IANA-RM]
   [return-codes]   [IANA-RC]
   [sub-1-16-21]    [IANA-Sub-n]
   [sub-11]         [IANA-Sub-11]
   [sub-20]         [IANA-Sub-20]
   ...
   [tlv-reg]        [IANA-TLV]


2.  Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries


   The following changes are made to the Message Types, Reply Modes and
   Return Codes [MessTypes] registries.

CMP: Why only citation to message types?

   o  a small set of code points (4 code points) for experimental use is
      added, actually they are take from the range for "Private Use".

CMP: Gramar fixing needed.

   o  the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
      "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed


CMP: Please let’s fix the initial sentence capitalization


   IETF does not prescribe how the Experimental Use and Private Use sub-
   TLVs are handled; however, if a packet containing a sub-TLV from the
   Experimental Use or Private Use ranges is received by an LSR that
   does not recognize the sub-TLV, an error message MAY be returned if
   the sub-TLV is from the range 31744-32767, and the packet SHOULD be
   silently dropped if it is from the range 64512-65535.


CMP: Which specific error message is sent? This updates not only registration but also protocol constructs. As such, this should be called out in the abstract (since it already updates 8029)

4.  Security Considerations


   TBA

CMP: “This document does not introduce any additional security considerations beyond RFC 8029.”

   [return-codes]
              "Return Codes", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
              mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
              mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#return-codes>.

CMP: In regards to all the references, the title needs to include “MPLS LSP Ping Parameters” before “, Return Codes”
CMP: Also the URI should be shorter: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/#return-codes <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/#return-codes>>


   [RFC8611]  Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B.,
              Drake, J., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
              and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation
              Group (LAG) Interfaces", RFC 8611, DOI 10.17487/RFC8611,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8611>.


CMP: This should be Informative.

I trust these are useful.

—
Carlos Pignataro, http://carlos.pignataro.net <http://carlos.pignataro.net/>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."