[mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-11: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I’m surprised that there’s not even a passing reference to
draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase, given that it points to this draft in several
places, among other things as “adding functionality to the use cases described
by this document”.  I'm not advocating for a web of references, just surprised.

(2) The definition of a field with the name “Protocol” in Section 5. (Segment
ID sub-TLV) got me a little confused when I went looking for a registry and
found the values corresponding to the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (Section
6).  The name is ok, but I was wondering:  Can you reuse the existing registry
for the values used on the Segment ID sub-TLV?  If so, then the values for
OSPF/ISIS would change.  If not, then please have IANA set one up.

(3) What happens if there’s any error (invalid length, unknown protocol, etc.)
in the sub-TLVs defined in Section 5?  I’m assuming that the action is specific
to the TLV that contains them, or that there is something already specified in
rfc8029 — please include a pointer, or specifics if needed.  I see that Section
7.4. (Segment ID Check) says that other values (for Protocol) “MUST be treated
as Protocol value of 0” — that’s ok for now, but when/if other values are used
this document would have to be Updated.  It may be better to say “any other
unassigned value” (or maybe unrecognized, or something along those lines).

(4) I would really like to see a registry definition for Adj. Type (in 5.3).