Re: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 B88ED12D90D; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 92nXRUTxsu9v; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x229.google.com (mail-oi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3C4812D77F; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s79so72203450oie.1; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J2bjLA7HL7oG6V3Rcv6Wdd8TcvvJxhxuAiKRlGnmMPU=; b=QalieEDmGiniEmgmyX1fs2Aql7bBpW8esmUGe50JbDAXBa7ZEQ4RTyPI5NLvfySO2U A9/Cu3xW4r3X+tibrVXd6OsFXtVGUeXA/86SonONnXtgIxjXyCS63lvSSN6TvUD/jKEu MWR1/R55KC66Zfth0NHRD/NUJoEwsKdEeV3fXnuAYDy+ws73L7Qv2fT+Dp0/Z68cxdKv ywaON6FjMf1/Vf4cSl1g+d+1Um6IBVN409zw4XxSuHGM46YHlx2Ic+3MAqEmJJNZa4tK u6qRlHAO2FKNQheYZYIQyOUqVksXIP5pWkVM12mcjj/Li20sQadRCAGj+vFscKrW+RNW 1E5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J2bjLA7HL7oG6V3Rcv6Wdd8TcvvJxhxuAiKRlGnmMPU=; b=DZ65uXmeRQ14BHkWYuZTnNLAn8nR+4Na0kClEz6nFwjIQBQlx/cNGJFG1k0kHUGvZK TOwGA/pk/gLp6Vf/9fAmkjOOb6ficGvMjYx960htg+FlOye7f/sG25lzTfS0fxzYit+X a1Q+Sn13WLaL4srIkhoCfrIAUuqQpeT1wamkELayWPaUOIehI5XFQcxLccLdcefKrXGk FkY40KOtDvtXr7s6BP4c7QsJ56e40KSMEpKHlKXAcXF40SenkrfWPrw2oxGjS7zn+WOR TG0mf2Lq8ztNjpd/oaYpipBze9zh2LDuZFnMZ5Dj9h4NxOpA8HwKQAXVMJ09vhtmS4Cg 8CLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXXpiqpC3R0a+rgPhwy8L2C59f3nt60HblhRsPAIgPITJmeR50jpAGIKv3pDcConQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.37.193 with SMTP id q59mr4807001ota.12.1460569776227; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2605:6001:e3c2:6700:c970:2877:2f21:ad45? ([2605:6001:e3c2:6700:c970:2877:2f21:ad45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e9sm12215963oig.11.2016.04.13.10.49.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160107043320.4920.88068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <57064F5A.2050401@gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <570E86AD.8020305@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:49:33 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57064F5A.2050401@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/FAMJURvEk71A-N3oA1vw72HQ8Ak>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 13 Apr 2016 17:49:38 -0000

Hi, Stewart,

On 04/07/2016 07:15 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On 07/01/2016 04:33, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: 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-rfc6374-udp-return-path/ 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I would be fine keeping the to-be-deleted text explaining alternatives
>> that were not selected, especially if it was moved to an appendix. If
>> anyone ever wonders about the alternatives, that would mean they didn't
>> have to dig through e-mail archives to see what was considered and why
>> the alternatives were rejected.
>>
>> I'm not understanding why
>>
>>     When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting the
>>     Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM query to "Out-of-band Response
>>     Requested", and the URO is present, the responder SHOULD send the
>>     response back to querier on the specified destination UDP port at 
>> the
>>     specified destination IP address contained in the URO.
>>     is a SHOULD. Could you help me with that?
>>
>>
>
> There are certain conditions where such a response is not possible. 
> These are
> described in the text. I take SHOULD to mean "MUST unless there are 
> extenuating
> circumstances" and MUST to mean "Unconditionally do".
>
> Stewart

Thanks for the clue!

Spencer