Re: [mpls] [IANA #1180946] Early Review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 23 October 2020 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 4B2783A0B91 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 03:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.143
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 EhQHjVuqnZ8U for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 03:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0624A3A0C38 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 03:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [124.104.122.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7094031D22B; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 12:36:59 +0200 (CEST)
To: iana-issues-comment@iana.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
References: <RT-Ticket-1180946@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-21295-1603389173-719.1180946-9-0@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-13899-1603389992-1633.1180946-9-0@icann.org>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <d2f2b1fa-88b3-da70-f07c-82c985643921@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 18:36:56 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.4.3-13899-1603389992-1633.1180946-9-0@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/6dhGLqQc3wayl7DMhfAXxFgKAf0>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [IANA #1180946] Early Review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:37:10 -0000

Michelle,

Thanks for careful review! Please see responses inline. Many of the 
typos were already found by Tom and Marti, but you found new ones.

I will now post version -05 of the document, which be ready for

I'm still a bit uncertain on how to name the "levels" in the MPLS IANA 
structure. I'm preparing a new draft for this, which even it does not go 
anywhere at least serve to explain to me what a correct terminology is.


On 23/10/2020 02:06, Michelle Cotton via RT wrote:
> Loa,
> 
> I've taken a look at version 04 of this document.
> Below you will find my comments with [MC]. I've pointed out some typos too.
> 
> Overall, the document seems to provide clear instructions on what IANA needs to change in the registries (both in registration procedures and specific changes to the registrations).
> 
> We'll do an official review when it goes through IETF Last Call.
> Let us know if you have any further questions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michelle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>     When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained updates to the
>     "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
>     Ping Parameters" IANA name space [IANA-LSP-PING].
> 
>     RFC 8611 [RFC8611] updated the LSP Ping IANA registries to match RFC
>     8029.  This document further clarifies the entries in those
>     registries and makes the definitions more precise.
> 
>     This document updates RFC 8029 [[RFC8029] and RFC 8611 [RFC8611] by
>     updating two groups of registries as follows:
> 
> [MC] Question: Will we be replacing the RFC8029 and RFC8611 references with this document or adding this document as an additional reference?

Godd question, I've gone back and forth on it. Juat now I think we need 
to reference both documents, since we are not updating the entire 8029 
and 8611.

> 
>     First the registries for Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply Modes
>     [IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC] are updated.  The changes to
>     these registries are minor.
> 
>     Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
> 
>     o  TLVs [IANA-TLV-reg].
> 
>     o  Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21].
> 
>     o  Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 [IANA-Sub-6].
> 
>     o  Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 [IANA-Sub-11].
> 
>     o  Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 [IANA-Sub-20].
> 
>     o  Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 [IANA-Sub-23].
> 
>     o  Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 [IANA-Sub-27].
> 
>     The registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 9 [IANA-Sub-9] is not updated.
> 
>     Third, some code points (TLVs and sub-TLVs) are "mandatory" or
>     "optional".  Contrary to how other RFCs use these words, indicating
>     that it is mandatory or optional to include the code points in a
>     message, RFC 8029 uses these words to indicate that an action might
>     or might not be necessary.  This document updates RFC 8029 to drop
>     the words "mandatory" and "optional", and the text is changed to
>     focus on what should be done.
> 
> 1.2.  Terminology Used in this Document
> 
>     This docuemtment uses some terms that relates to IANA registries in
>     this way:
> 
> [MC] Typo “document”
        Fixed in a previous update
> 
>        IANA Name Space,
>        a name space is a top level registry.  An exasmple could be
>        "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
>        Ping Parameters" [IANA-LSP-PING].  A name space is most often a
>        contaimer for regiistries that hold code points that share some
>        affinity.
> 
> [MC] Typo “example”, “container”, “registries”
         Fixed

> 
>        IANA Registry,
>        an IANA registry holds code points, and lists the registration
>        procedures and allocation of code points these code points.  One
>        example would be the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg].
> 
>        IANA Sub-registry,
>        a sub-registry is used when a code point allocated in a registry
>        need code points scoped by that or a set of code points.  An
>        example of a sunregistry thast holds code points for more than one
>        TLV is "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]
> 
> [MC] Typo “Sub registry”, “that”
        A comment from Martin change the text in this paragraph.
        Question: I like to use Sub-registry in "titles", like the "IANA
        Sub-registry". And sub-registry within text. Would that be OK?


> 
> 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 [IANA-MT] registries.
> 
>     o  In the listing of assiged code points the term "Vendor Private
>        Use" is changed to "Private Use".
> 
> [MC] Typo “Assigned”
        Fixed, but I saw no reason to use capital "A".
> 
>     o  The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
>        "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed.
> 
>     o  A small set of code points (4 code points) for Experimental Use is
>        added by reducing the range for "RFC Required" range.
> 
>     o  The registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use"
>        are added to the table of registration procedures.
> 
>     o  A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration
>        procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use".
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                 [Page 4]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     o  In the lists that capture the assignment status, the fields that
>        are reserved, i.e.  0 (zero), Private Use and Experimental Use are
>        clearly marked as such.
> 
>        *  Note that in the Return Codes registry [IANA-RC] registry the
>           code point "0" has already been assigned.  This assignment is
>           not changed and in this registry the code point "0" continues
>           to be assigned as "No Return Code".
> 
>     The new Registration Procedures, the registry layouts and the new
>     assignments for these registries are found in Section 6.1.
> 
> 3.  Updating the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries
> 
> 3.1.  General Principles for the LSP Ping TLV and Sub-TLV registries
> 
>     The following principles apply to the processing of any TLV from any
>     of the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV IANA registries.
> 
>     o  All TLVs and sub-TLVs with a type in the range 0-32767 require a
>        response if they are not recognized.
> 
>     o  All TLVs and sub-TLVs in the range 32768-65535 may be silently
>        dropped, stepped over or an error message sennt if they are not
>        recognized.
> 
> [MC] Typo “sent”
        Fixed earlier
> 
>     The range of each TLV and sub-TLV registry is divided into two
>     blocks, one with a range from 0 to 32767 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that
>     require a response if not recognized.  The other block has the range
>     from 32768 to 65535 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that may be silently
>     dropped, stepped over or an error message sent, if not recognized.
> 
>     Each of the blocks has code point spaces with the following
>     registration procedures:
> 
>     o  Standards Action.
> 
>     o  RFC Required.
> 
>     o  Experimental Use.
> 
>     o  First come, first served (FCFS).
> 
>     The exact defintions of these procedures are found in [RFC8126].
> 
> [MC] Typo “definitions”
   Fixed

> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                 [Page 5]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
> 3.1.1.  Unrecognized Experimental Use TLVs and Sub-TLVs
> 
>     Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs in the Experimetal Use, and FCFS
>     ranges are handled as any other unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV.
>
> [MC] Typo “Experimental”
   Fixed

> 
>     o  If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use
>        range (37140-37143) or from the FCFS range (31744-32767) a the
>        Return Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood")
>        will be sent in the echo response.
> 
>     o  If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use
>        range (64508-64511).  or from the FCFS range (64512-65535) the
>        TLVs may be silently ignored, stepped over or an error message
>        sent.
> 
>     The IETF does not prescribe how recognized or unrecognized
>     Experimental Use and Private Use TLVs and sub-TLVs are handled in
>     experimental or private networks, that is up to the agency running
>     the experiment or the private network.  The statement above describes
>     how standards compliant implementations will treat the unrecognized
>     TLVs and sub- TLVs from these ranges.
> 
> 3.2.  Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs
> 
>     This section describes the new registration procedures for the TLV
>     and sub-TLV registries.
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                 [Page 6]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
>     |             |                   | TLVs that require an error      |
>     |             |                   | message if not recognized.      |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for TLVs an sub-  |
>     |             |                   | TLVs that require an error      |
>     |             |                   | message if not recognized.      |
>     | 37140-37143 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 31744-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for TLVs anf sub- |
>     |             |                   | TLVs that require an error      |
>     |             |                   | message if not recognized.      |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
>     |             |                   | TLVs that can be silently       |
>     |             |                   | dropped if not recognized.      |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
>     |             |                   | TLVs that can be silently       |
>     |             |                   | dropped if not recognized.      |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
>     |             |                   | TLVs that can be silently       |
>     |             |                   | dropped if not recognized.      |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>                    TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures
> 
> [MC] Should 37140-37143 | Experimental Use actually be
> 31740-31743 | Experimental Use?
   The rangges were fixed based on comments from Tom and Martin, and be
   correct in version -05, which will be posted as soon as I addressed
   all of your comments.

> 
> 3.3.  Changes to the LSP Ping Registries
> 
>     This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV
>     Registry, see section 6.2.1 to 6.2.7 describe how the new versions of
>     the IANA registries should look, together with the registration
>     procedures for each registry.
> 
>     The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments
>     for these registries are used to model the changed MPLS LSP Ping
>     registries, see Section 6 .
> 
> 3.3.1.  Common Changes to the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries
> 
>     The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
> 
>     o  The registration procedures "First Come Frst Served (FCFS)" and
>        "Experimental Use" are added to the table of registration
>        procedures.
> 
> [MC] Typos “First”
   Fixed

> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                 [Page 7]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     o  Two small sets of code points (4 code points each) for
>        Experiemental Use, are created.  The first set are for the range
>        that requires a response if the TLV or sub-TLV is not recognised;
>        the second set are for the range there the TLV or sub-TLV that may
>        be silently dropped if not recognized.  The code points for
>        experimental use are actually taken from the two ranges now called
>        "RFC Required".
> 
> [MC] Typo “Experimental”
        Fixed

> 
>     o  The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
>        "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed.
> 
>     o  In the listing of assignments the term "Vendor Private Use" is
>        changed to "First Come First Served (FCFS)".
> 
>     o  In the listing of assignments the range for "Experimental Use" is
>        added.
> 
>     o  A note saying "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration
>        procedures "Experimental Use".
> 
>     o  In the list that captures assignment status, the fields that are
>        reserved, i.e.  0 (zero) and Experimental Use are clearly marked.
> 
> 4.  Updates to Related RFCs
> 
>     Some referenced RFCs use the concept "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory
>     sub-TLVs" to indicate that, if a TLV or sub-TLV of the range 0-16383
>     or 16384-31743 in a message is not understood, an error message needs
>     to be sent in response.
> 
>     The same RFCs use "optional TLVs" and "optional sub-TLVs" to mean
>     TLVs or sub-TLVs that can be silently ignored if not recognized.
> 
>     Since other RFCs use "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs" to
>     indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs that must be present in a message, we want
>     to discontinue the use of "mandatory" to indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs
>     that requires an error message in response if not understood.  The
>     changes to the RFCs below align with this practice.
> 
> 4.1.  Updates to RFC 8029
> 
>     Mandatory and optional are used to indicate whether a response is
>     needed if a TLV or sub-TLV is not understood on pages 14 and 15 in
>     Section 3 of RFC 8029.
> 
>     The text in those two paragraphs are now updated to the following:
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                 [Page 8]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>        TLV and sub-TLV Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order
>        bit equal to 0) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that MUST either be
>        supported by an implementation or result in the Return Code of 2
>        ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the
>        echo response.
> 
>        An implementation that does not understand or support a received
>        TLV or sub-TLV with Type greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e.,
>        with the high-order bit equal to 1) SHOULD ignore and step over
>        the TLV or sub-TLV, however an implementation MAY send an echo
>        response with Return Code 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not
>        understood") as it would have done if the high order bit had been
>        clear.
> 
>     In Section 3.8 of RFC 8029 "mandatory" is used in the same way.  The
>     first two paragraphs of this section are now updated to read as
>     follows:
> 
>        The following TLV is a TLV that MAY be included in an echo reply
>        to inform the sender of an echo request that includes TLVs or sub-
>        TLVs Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to
>        0) are either not supported by the implementation or parsed and
>        found to be in error.
> 
>        The Value field contains the TLVs, including sub-TLVs, that were
>        not understood, encoded as sub-TLVs.
> 
> 4.2.  Updates to RFC 8611
> 
>     Section 13.4.1 of "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute
>     Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
>     [RFC8611]" defines "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6].
> 
>     The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry is now updated to align with
>     changes defined in this document.
> 
>     Section 13.4.1 of RFC 8611 is now updated as follows:
> 
>     Section 13.4.1 Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6
> 
>     IANA has created a new sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6"
>     [IANA-Sub-6] under the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg] of the
>     "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
>     Ping Parameters" name space [lsp-ping-NameSpace].
> 
>     The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" sub-registry is now updated to align
>     with changes defined in this document.
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                 [Page 9]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use  | Reserved not to be assigned     |
>     | 31744-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved not to be assigned     |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>           Table 1: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures
> 
> 5.  Security Considerations
> 
>     This document updates IANA registries.  It also updates terminology
>     used to define, and clarifies the terminology related to, the code
>     points in the registries.  The document does not change how the code-
>     points in the registries are used.  This should not create any new
>     threats.
> 
>     However, the updated terminology and the clarifications improve
>     security because it makes it more likely that implementations will be
>     consistent and harder to attack.
> 
> 6.  IANA Considerations
> 
>     IANA is requested to update the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
>     Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" name space
>     [IANA-LSP-PING] as described in this document.
> 
>     See Section 1.2 "Terminology Used in this Document" to see how "name
>     space", "registry" and "sub-registry" are used in this document.
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 10]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     In other parts of this document the communality of the changes to the
>     LSP Ping registries has been the focus.  For the IANA considerations
>     each changed registry has been described in its own right.
> 
>     The following registries and sub-registries are changed:
> 
>     "Message Types", [IANA-MT],
>     "Reply Modes", [IANA-RM]
>     "Return Codes" [IANA-RC]
>     "TLVs" [IANA-TLV-reg]
>     "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]
>     "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6]
>     "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" [IANA-Sub-11]
>     "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" [IANA-Sub-20]
>     "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" [IANA-Sub-23]
>     "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" [IANA-Sub-27]
> 
> 6.1.  Updates to the Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes
>        Registries
> 
>     This section details the updated registration procedures and
>     allocations for "Message Type", "Reply Mode" and "Return Codes"
>     registries.
> 
> 6.1.1.  Updates to the Mesage Type registry
> 
> [MC] Typo “Message”
   Fixed

> 
>     This is the changes to the "Message Type" registry specified in this
>     document:
> 
>     o  Code Point 0 (zero) is marked Resereved.
> 
> [MC] Typo “Reserved”
   Fixed

> 
>     o  The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
>        "RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is
>        removed.
> 
>     o  Four code point has been taken from what was earlier
>        "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for
>        "Experimental Use."
> 
>     The registration procedures after the changes for the "Message Type"
>     registry are shown in the table below:
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 11]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
>     | Range   | Registration       | Note                               |
>     |         | Procedures         |                                    |
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
>     | 0-191   | Standards Action   |                                    |
>     | 192-247 | RFC Required       |                                    |
>     | 248-251 | Experimental Use   | Reserved, not to be assigned       |
>     | 252-255 | Private Use        | Reserved, not to be assigned       |
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
> 
>                 Table 2: Message Type registration procedures
> 
>     The updated assignments for the "Message Types" registry will look
>     like this:
> 
>     +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
>     | Value   | Meaning                         | Reference             |
>     +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
>     | 0       | Reserved                        | This document         |
>     | 1       | MPLS Echo Request               | [RFC8029]             |
>     | 2       | MPLS Echo Reply                 | [RFC8029]             |
>     | 3       | MPLS Proxy Ping Request         | [RFC7555]             |
>     | 4       | MPLS Proxy Ping Reply           | [RFC7555]             |
>     | 5       | MPLS Relayed Echo Reply         | [RFC7743]             |
>     | 6-247   | Unassigned                      |                       |
>     | 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use   | This document         |
>     | 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use        | [RFC8029]             |
>     +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
> 
>              Table 3: Assignments for the Message Types registry
> 
> 6.1.2.  Updates to the Reply Modes registry
> 
>     This is the changes to the "Reply Modes" registry specified in this
>     document:
> 
>     o  Code Point 0 (zero) is marked Resereved.
> 
> [MC] Typo “Reserved”
   Fixed

> 
>     o  The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
>        "RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is
>        removed.
> 
>     o  Four code point has been taken from what was earlier
>        "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for
>        "Experimental Use".
> 
>     The registration procedures after the changes for the "Reply Modes"
>     registry are show in the table below:
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 12]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
>     | Range   | Registration       | Note                               |
>     |         | Procedures         |                                    |
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
>     | 0-191   | Standards Action   |                                    |
>     | 192-247 | RFC Required       |                                    |
>     | 248-251 | Experimental Use   | Reserved, not to be assigned       |
>     | 252-255 | Private Use        | Reserved, not to be assigned       |
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
> 
>                 Table 4: Reply Modes registration procedures
> 
>     The updated assignments for the "Reply Modes" registry will look like
>     this:
> 
>     +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
>     | Value   | Meaning                         | Reference             |
>     +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
>     | 0       | Reserved                        | This document         |
>     | 1       | Do not reply                    | [RFC8029]             |
>     | 2       | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP      | [RFC8029]             |
>     |         | packet                          |                       |
>     | 3       | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP      | [RFC8029]             |
>     |         | packet with Router Alert        |                       |
>     | 4       | Reply via application-level     | [RFC8029]             |
>     |         | control channel                 |                       |
>     | 5       | Reply via Specified Path        | [RFC7110]             |
>     | 6-247   | Unassigned                      |                       |
>     | 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use   | This document         |
>     | 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use        | [RFC8029]             |
>     +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
> 
>               Table 5: Assignments for the Reply Modes registry
> 
> 6.1.3.  Updates to the Return Codes registry
> 
>     This is the changes to the "Return Codes" registry specified in this
>     document:
> 
>     o  The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
>        "RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is
>        removed.
> 
>     o  Four code point has been taken from what was earlier
>        "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for
>        "Experimental Use".
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 13]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     The registration procedures after the changes for the "Return Codes"
>     registry are show in the table below:
> 
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
>     | Range   | Registration       | Note                               |
>     |         | Procedures         |                                    |
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
>     | 0-191   | Standards Action   |                                    |
>     | 192-247 | RFC Required       |                                    |
>     | 248-251 | Experimental Use   | Reserved, not to be assigned       |
>     | 252-255 | Private Use        | Reserved, not to be assigned       |
>     +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
> 
>                 Table 6: Return Codes registration procedures
> 
>     The updated assignments for the "Return Codes" registry will look
>     like this:
> 
>     +---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+
>     | Value   | Meaning                          | Reference            |
>     +---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+
>     | 0       | No Return Code                   | This document        |
>     | 1       | Malformed echo request received  | [RFC8029]            |
>     | 2       | One or more of the TLVs was not  | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | understood                       |                      |
>     | 3       | Replying router is an egress for | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | the FEC at stack-depth (RSC)     |                      |
>     | 4       | Replying router has no mapping   | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | for the FEC at stack-depth (RSC) |                      |
>     | 5       | Downstream Mapping Mismatch (See | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | [1])                             |                      |
>     | 6       | Upstream Interface Index Unknown | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | (See [1])                        |                      |
>     | 7       | Reserved                         | [RFC8029]            |
>     | 8       | Label switched at stack-depth    | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | (RSC)                            |                      |
>     | 9       | Label switched but no MPLS       | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | forwarding at stack-depth (RSC)  |                      |
>     | 10      | Mapping for this FEC is not the  | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | given label at stack-depth (RSC) |                      |
>     | 11      | No label entry at stack-depth    | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | (RSC)                            |                      |
>     | 12      | Protocol not associated with     | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | interface at FEC stack-depth     |                      |
>     |         | (RSC)                            |                      |
>     | 13      | Premature termination of ping    | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | due to label stack shrinking to  |                      |
>     |         | a single label                   |                      |
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 14]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     | 14      | See DDMAP TLV for meaning of     | [RFC8029]            |
>     |         | Return Code and Return Subcode   |                      |
>     |         | (See [2])                        |                      |
>     | 15      | Label switched with FEC change   | [RFC8029]            |
>     | 16      | Proxy Ping not authorized        | [RFC7555]            |
>     | 17      | Proxy Ping parameters need to be | [RFC7555]            |
>     |         | modified                         |                      |
>     | 18      | MPLS Echo Request could not be   | [RFC7555]            |
>     |         | sent                             |                      |
>     | 19      | Replying router has FEC mapping  | [RFC7555]            |
>     |         | for topmost FEC                  |                      |
>     | 20      | One or more TLVs not returned    | [RFC7743]            |
>     |         | due to MTU size                  |                      |
>     | 21      | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD      | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | Version                          |                      |
>     | 22      | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD      | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | Encapsulation format             |                      |
>     | 23      | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD      | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | Authentication Type              |                      |
>     | 24      | OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD      | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | Authentication Key ID            |                      |
>     | 25      | OAM Problem/Unsupported          | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | Timestamp Format                 |                      |
>     | 26      | OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay    | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | Mode                             |                      |
>     | 27      | OAM Problem/Unsupported Loss     | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | Mode                             |                      |
>     | 28      | AM Problem/Delay variation       | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | unsupported                      |                      |
>     | 29      | OAM Problem/Dyadic mode          | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | unsupported                      |                      |
>     | 30      | OAM Problem/Loopback mode        | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | unsupported                      |                      |
>     | 31      | OAM Problem/Combined mode        | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | unsupported                      |                      |
>     | 32      | OAM Problem/Fault management     | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | signaling unsupported            |                      |
>     | 33      | OAM Problem/Unable to create     | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | fault management association     |                      |
>     | 34      | OAM Problem/PM Configuration     | [RFC7759]            |
>     |         | Error                            |                      |
>     | 35      | Mapping for this FEC is not      | [RFC8287] sec 7.4    |
>     |         | associated with the incoming     |                      |
>     |         | interface                        |                      |
>     | 36-247  | Unassigned                       | [RFC7759]            |
>     | 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use    | This document        |
>     | 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use         | [RFC8029]            |
>     +---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 15]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>              Table 7: Assignments for the Return Codes registry
> 
> 6.2.  Updates to the TLV and sub-TLV registries
> 
>     The updates to the TLV and the sub-TLV registries are mostly the
>     same, however the Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9 [IANA-Sub-9] has not been
>     updated.
> 
>     Note that when a field in an assigment table sayds "EQ", it means
>     that the field should not be changed as compared to the corresponding
>     field in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
>     Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" name space [IANA-LSP-PING]
> 
> [MC] Typos “assignment”, “says”
   Fixed

> 
> 6.2.1.  Updates to the TLVs registry
> 
>     This section describes the new registration procedures and the
>     assignments for the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg] based on the new
>     registration procedures.
> 
>     The registration procedures has been changed the following way for
>     the "TLVs" registry.
> 
>     o  The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
>        changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
>        has been removed.
> 
>     o  The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
>        been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
>        points.
> 
>     o  Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
>        Experimental Use.
> 
>     o  Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
> 
>     o  The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
>        procedures.
> 
>     o  The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
>        to reflect when a response is required or not if a TLV is not
>        recognized.
> 
>     The registration procedures for the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg]
>     will now look like this:
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 16]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for TLVs that     |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for TLVs that     |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 31744-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for TLVs that     |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for TLVs that can |
>     |             |                   | be silently dropped if not      |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for TLVs that can |
>     |             |                   | be silently dropped if not      |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for TLVs that can |
>     |             |                   | be silently dropped if not      |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>                     Table 8: TLV Registration Procedures
> 
>     The TLV Assignments will now look like this.
> 
>     Note that when a field in this table does say "EQ", it means that it
>     should be the same as the registry being updtated.
> 
> [MC] Typo “updated”
   Fixed

> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 17]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | Type        | TLV Name      | Reference       | Sub-TLV Registry  |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | 0           | Reserved      | This document   |                   |
>     | 1-7         | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 8           | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 9-16        | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 17-19       | unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 20-27       | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 28-31739    | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental  | This Document   | Reserved, not to  |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 31744-32767 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 32768-32770 | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 32771-64507 | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental  | This document   | Resereved, not to |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 64512-65535 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
> 
> [MC] Typo “Reserved”
   Fixed
>                           Table 9: TLV Assignments
> 
> 6.2.2.  Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21
> 
>     This section describes the new registration procedures and the
>     assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21"
>     [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] sub-registry based on the new registration
>     procedures.
> 
>     o  The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
>        changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
>        has been removed.
> 
>     o  The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
>        been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
>        points.
> 
>     o  Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
>        Experimental Use.
> 
>     o  Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
> 
>     o  The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
>        procedures.
> 
>     o  The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
>        to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
>        recognized or not.
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 18]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     The registration procedures for the
>     "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] sub-
>     registry will now look like this:
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for TLVs that     |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for TLVs that     |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 37140-37144 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 31748-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for TLVs that     |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for TLVs that can |
>     |             |                   | be silently dropped if not      |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for TLVs that can |
>     |             |                   | be silently dropped if not      |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for TLVs that can |
>     |             |                   | be silently dropped if not      |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>     Table 10: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 19]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | Type        | TLV Name      | Reference       | Comment           |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | 0           | Reserved      | This document   |                   |
>     | 1-4         | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 5           | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 6-8         | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 9           | EQ            | EQ              | DEPRECATED        |
>     | 9-20        | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 21          | unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 22-37       | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 38-31739    | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental  | This Document   | Reserved, not to  |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 31744-64507 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental  | This document   | Resereved, not to |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 64512-65535 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
> 
> [MC] Typo “Reserved”
   Fixed

> 
>              Table 11: Sub-TLV for TLV 1, 16 and 21 Assignments
> 
> 6.2.3.  Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 6
> 
>     This section describes the new registration procedures and the
>     assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] sub-
>     registry based on the new registration procedures.
> 
>     o  The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
>        changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
>        has been removed.
> 
>     o  The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
>        been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
>        points.
> 
>     o  Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
>        Experimental Use.
> 
>     o  Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
> 
>     o  The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
>        procedures.
> 
>     o  The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
>        to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
>        recognized or not.
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 20]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6"
>     [IANA-Sub-6] sub-registry will now look like this:
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 37140-37144 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 31748-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>           Table 12: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 6
> 
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | Type        | TLV Name      | Reference       | Comment           |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | 0           | Reserved      | This document   |                   |
>     | 1-2         | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 3-31739     | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental  | This Document   | Reserved, not to  |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 31744-64507 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental  | This document   | Resereved, not to |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 64512-65535 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
> 
> [MC] Typo “Reserved”
   Fixed

> 
>                   Table 13: Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 Assignments
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 21]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
> 6.2.4.  Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 11
> 
>     This section describes the new registration procedures and the
>     assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" [IANA-Sub-11] sub-
>     registry based on the new registration procedures.
> 
>     o  The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
>        changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
>        has been removed.
> 
>     o  The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
>        been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
>        points.
> 
>     o  Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
>        Experimental Use.
> 
>     o  Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
> 
>     o  The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
>        procedures.
> 
>     o  The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
>        to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
>        recognized or not.
> 
>     The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11"
>     [IANA-Sub-11] sub-registry will now look like this:
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 22]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 37140-37144 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 31748-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>          Table 14: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 11
> 
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | Type        | TLV Name      | Reference       | Comment           |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | 0           | Reserved      | This document   |                   |
>     | 1-4         | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 5-31739     | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental  | This Document   | Reserved, not to  |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 31744-64507 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental  | This document   | Resereved, not to |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 64512-65535 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
> 
> [MC] Typo “Reserved”
  Fixed

> 
>                   Table 15: Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 Assignments
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 23]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
> 6.2.5.  Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 20
> 
>     This section describes the new registration procedures and the
>     assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" [IANA-Sub-20] sub-
>     registry based on the new registration procedures.
> 
>     o  The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
>        changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
>        has been removed.
> 
>     o  The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
>        been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
>        points.
> 
>     o  Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
>        Experimental Use.
> 
>     o  Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
> 
>     o  The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
>        procedures.
> 
>     o  The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
>        to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
>        recognized or not.
> 
>     The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20"
>     [IANA-Sub-20] sub-registry will now look like this:
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 24]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 37140-37144 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 31748-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>          Table 16: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 20
> 
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | Type        | TLV Name      | Reference       | Comment           |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | 0           | Reserved      | This document   |                   |
>     | 1-5         | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 6-31739     | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental  | This Document   | Reserved, not to  |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 31744-64507 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental  | This document   | Resereved, not to |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 64512-65535 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
> 
> [MC] Typo “Reserved”
   Fixed

> 
>                   Table 17: Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 Assignments
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 25]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
> 6.2.6.  Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 23
> 
>     This section describes the new registration procedures and the
>     assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" [IANA-Sub-23] sub-
>     registry based on the new registration procedures.
> 
>     o  The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
>        changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
>        has been removed.
> 
>     o  The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
>        been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
>        points.
> 
>     o  Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
>        Experimental Use.
> 
>     o  Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
> 
>     o  The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
>        procedures.
> 
>     o  The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
>        to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
>        recognized or not.
> 
>     The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23"
>     [IANA-Sub-23] sub-registry will now look like this:
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 26]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 37140-37144 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 31748-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>          Table 18: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 23
> 
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | Type        | TLV Name      | Reference       | Comment           |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | 0           | Reserved      | [RFC7555]       |                   |
>     | 1           | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 2-31739     | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental  | This Document   | Reserved, not to  |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 31744-64507 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental  | This document   | Resereved, not to |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 64512-65535 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
> 
> [MC] Typo “Reserved”
   Fixed

> 
>                   Table 19: Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 Assignments
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 27]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
> 6.2.7.  Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 27
> 
>     This section describes the new registration procedures and the
>     assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" [IANA-Sub-27] sub-
>     registry based on the new registration procedures.
> 
>     o  The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
>        changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
>        has been removed.
> 
>     o  The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
>        been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
>        points.
> 
>     o  Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
>        Experimental Use.
> 
>     o  Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
> 
>     o  The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
>        procedures.
> 
>     o  The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
>        to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
>        recognized or not.
> 
>     The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27"
>     [IANA-Sub-27] sub-registry will now look like this:
> 
> Andersson, et al.        Expires March 28, 2021                [Page 28]
> Internet-Draft             LSP Ping Registries            September 2020
> 
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | Range       | Registration      | Note                            |
>     |             | Procedures        |                                 |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
>     | 0-16383     | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 16384-31739 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 37140-37144 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 31748-32767 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | require an error message if not |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 32768-49161 | Standards Action  | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 49162-64507 | RFC Required      | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use  | Reserved, not to be assigned    |
>     | 64512-65535 | FCFS              | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
>     |             |                   | can be silently dropped if not  |
>     |             |                   | recognized.                     |
>     +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
> 
>           Table 20: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLV 27
> 
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | Type        | TLV Name      | Reference       | Comment           |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | 0           | Reserved      | [RFC7555]       |                   |
>     | 1           | EQ            | EQ              | EQ                |
>     | 2-31739     | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 31740-31743 | Experimental  | This Document   | Reserved, not to  |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 31744-64507 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     | 64508-64511 | Experimental  | This document   | Resereved, not to |
>     |             | Use           |                 | be assigned       |
>     | 64512-65535 | Unassigned    |                 |                   |
>     +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
> 
>                   Table 21: Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 Assignments
> 


/Loa
-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64