Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 08 April 2020 10:38 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 EBC283A1214; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 WGBxx4z5vnvf; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:38:56 -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 A410F3A121D; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (unknown [122.2.101.167]) (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 C41B031D7AC; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 12:38:50 +0200 (CEST)
To: Loa Andersson <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com>, adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org
References: <013801d60d81$2c65a710$8530f530$@olddog.co.uk> <A699BB90-8EBD-4E19-B015-217A4BD2F3A4@gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <b4f8c1de-15e2-792d-f8e1-2e6ac610b765@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 18:38:46 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A699BB90-8EBD-4E19-B015-217A4BD2F3A4@gmail.com>
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/9IemSMeTpGyuzDEuozhxTbzgegI>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01
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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:38:58 -0000

All,

The first bullet were not clear.

On 08/04/2020 17:56, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Adrian,
> 
> I think both you and Mach are in part wrong.
> 
> First, the way the registries has been causing problems.

First the way the registries has been set up have caused problems.

/Loa
> 
> Second, as for Experimental and Private Use we have not had that.
> 
> Third, some of us has been confused thinking that code points assigned by Experimental RFC are experimental code points.
> 
> Fourth, we should take the time necessary to get this right.
> 
> Five, it is likely that that the next version on the document will only address part of the comments from Adrian, especially the idea that we need to condense the document into less text.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 8 Apr 2020, at 16:39, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mach,
>>
>> I thought the whole reason we had this document was because what we have had
>> for so many years is wrong.
>>
>> If the argument is that "we have been doing it for a long time and it hasn't
>> caused any problems" then let's abandon this draft and spend our time more
>> profitably!
>>
>> However, I believe that Loa makes a good argument that the draft is needed,
>> and we should take that opportunity to work out what we really want.
>>
>> Now, a very strong argument from anyone would be "we're already using code
>> points from this part of the registry, please don't mess with it".
>>
>> Best,
>> Adrian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
>> Sent: 08 April 2020 03:10
>> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>nu>; tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>om>; Carlos
>> Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>om>; Adrian Farrel
>> <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>> Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>rg>;
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Although I think the probability of using "Private Use" is low, I incline to
>> agree with Tom here. It's safer to keep both the "Private Use" and
>> "Experimental Use". And since we have been along with them for so many
>> years, seems it's no harm to keep keeping them.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mach
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 1:15 PM
>>> To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>om>; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
>>> <cpignata@cisco.com>om>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>>> Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf

-- 

My mail server it uner a DOS attack, we are working to fix it but it
may take some time.


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