Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 28 June 2013 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6138921F9546; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pfy-U4e8o1Mf; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135A421F847A; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5SCPQFv008067; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:25:26 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5SCPPYA008018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:25:26 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>, mpls@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org
References: <51B9BE97.2090103@pi.nu> <51CD64A1.4010408@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <51CD64A1.4010408@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:25:21 +0100
Message-ID: <001401ce73fa$8f45d620$add18260$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHW5VCOalYSNbB9yB8pqvNYs+N7SwKMkCermSXElDA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:25:39 -0000

> However TLVs might be carried in the GACh messages, the disticnction
> is not entirely clear in the draft, can the authors please make
> this clear.

Happily.

The current version defines "ACH TLV" as "TLV constructs that can be carried in
messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between the fixed header fields
and the G-ACh message."

Thus, retiring ACH TLVs, obviously means only removing this concept and not any
other TLV-related concept.

I would propose to change the last sentence of Section 1 as follows:

OLD
   This document states that ACH TLVs as specified in RFC 5586 are not
   useful and might be harmful.  It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the
   ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in
   Section 4 of this document.
NEW
   This document states that ACH TLVs as specified in RFC 5586 are not
   useful and might be harmful.  It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the
   ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in
   Section 4 of this document.  This document makes no comment about the
   use of TLVs in other places.  In particular, proposals to use TLVs
   within ACH messages, or as an appendage to ACH messages are not in
   scope of this document.
END

Does that work?

Thanks,
Adrian