Re: [mpls] Retiring ACH TLVs

Hi Adrian,

> In Section 4 it talks about "ACH TLVs if present." And I am working on the
> assumption that if TLVs are not defined, they will never be present, so the
> text doesn't actually need updating.
>
[Lizhong] Thanks for the reply. I do not have strong preferrence for bising
RFC5586. A note in section 2 maybe be enough, e.g, since ACH TLV has been
removed, the ACH TLV description in section 4 will also be removed.

Thanks
Lizhong

> **
>
> In Section  10 there is the IANA work to create the ACH TLV registry and
> add the column to the ACH Type registry. We are directly instructing IANA
> to remove that from the registry, and I don't think that 5586 needs to be
> updated.****
>
> ** **
>
> Our aim was minimal and clear update to 5586 rather than a new revision. *
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> If the WG prefers, we could bis 5586 to remove all discussion of the ACH
> TLV.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Adrian****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Lizhong Jin [mailto:lizho.jin@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 17 May 2013 06:44
> *To:* mpls@ietf.org; adrian@olddog.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Retiring ACH TLVs****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,****
>
> Support, and I like this. But it seems deleting section 3 in RFC5586 is
> not enough. Other sections in RFC5586 also has the content of ACH TLV. Is
> it engouth to update by only deleting section 3 described in this draft?**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> Lizhong****
>
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > ACH TLVs keep popping up and causing Stewart and me trouble. Mainly it is
> > about explaining why no-one actually wants to use them (i.e., when each
> new
> > ACH Type is defined and has a "No TLVs" written for it, we get asked "why
> > not?").
> >
> > It seems to us that ACH TLVs are an idea that has been rejected.
> Initially
> > we thought they might be used (especially for identifiers), but there
> seems
> > to be good opinion that handling generic TLVs would be a pain.
> >
> > Since I was heavily responsible for insisting that ACH TLVs were included
> > in RFC 5586, it seems reasonable that I do the work to fix it.
> >
> > The I-D below retires ACH TLVs and handles the necessary registry
> changes.
> >
> > Note, of course, that structured data are still possible within
> individual
> > ACHs if the protocol spec for an individual ACH decides to have them.
> >
> > We're directing this work to the MPLS working group because that is where
> > 5586 was written. I have BCC'ed PWE3, L2VPN, and BFD for information.
> >
> > Thanks for any comments.
> >
> > As humble WG contributors we would be enthusiastic to see early WG
> > adoption and last call :-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> > > Sent: 07 May 2013 17:33
> > > To: Adrian Farrel; Stewart Bryant
> > > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-
> > > 00.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > A new version of I-D, draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00.txt
> > > has been successfully submitted by Adrian Farrel and posted to the
> > > IETF repository.
> > >
> > > Filename:      draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
> > > Revision:      00
> > > Title:                 Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header
> > of the MPLS
> > > Generic Associated Channel
> > > Creation date:         2013-05-07
> > > Group:                 Individual Submission
> > > Number of pages: 4
> > > URL:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-
> > > ach-tlv-00.txt
> > > Status:
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
> > > Htmlized:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00
> > >
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >    The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of
> > >    the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header
> > >    (ACH).  RFC 5586 defines the concept of Type-Length-Variable (TLV)
> > >    constructs that can be carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing
> > >    them in the ACH.
> > >
> > >    No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses a TLV.  Furthermore, it
> > >    is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant
> > >    problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to
> > >    be processed substantially in hardware, the use of TLVs in
> > >    undesirable.
> > >
> > >    This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the
> > >    associated registry.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The IETF Secretariat
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/attachments/20130516/f560777c/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------****
>
>