Re: [mpls] [IANA #815506] Protocol Action: 'Proxy MPLS Echo Request' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05.txt)

["George Swallow (swallow)" <[e-mail]>]

Yes.

On 4/10/15 2:37 AM, "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>George,
>
>In my Shepherd response to the IANA mail, I responded to "QUESTION"
>(below) I said it is correct to add the notes to the sub-TLV registry
>for Proxy Echo Parameters as we have for the existing sub-TLV
>registries.
>
>Do you agree?
>
>/Loa
>
>On 2015-04-09 21:32, George Swallow (swallow) wrote:
>> Amanda -
>>
>> These look fine to me.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> George
>>
>> On 4/8/15 7:29 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" <[e-mail]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Authors:
>>>
>>> ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED
>>>
>>> We've completed the IANA Actions for the following RFC-to-be:
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05
>>>
>>> NOTE: The following have been converted to lower case: "could" in
>>>TBA-9;
>>> "marked" in the notes attached to the registration procedures for the
>>> Downstream Mapping and Next Hop registries.
>>>
>>> QUESTION: The existing sub-TLV registries list notes for each
>>> registration range. The new sub-TLV registry for Proxy Echo Parameters
>>> doesn't, because I couldn't find a source for those notes in RFC 4379.
>>>
>>> Should those notes ("This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional
>>> TLVs that require an error message if not recognized," etc.) be
>>>included
>>> in this registry's registration procedures? If so, are these included
>>>or
>>> implied in RFC 4379? If there isn't a source for them in RFC 4379,
>>> they'll have to be spelled out in this document's IANA Considerations
>>> section.
>>>
>>> ACTION 1:
>>>
>>> IANA has registered the following Message Types:
>>>
>>> 3	MPLS Proxy Ping Request	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> 4	MPLS Proxy Ping Reply	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>>
>>> Please see
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>>>
>>>
>>> ACTION 2:
>>>
>>> IANA has registered the following TLVs:
>>>
>>> 23	Proxy Echo
>>> 
>>>Parameters	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	[http://www.iana.org/assign
>>>me
>>> nts/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#sub-tlv-23]
>>> 24	Reply-to Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No Sub-TLVs
>>> 25	Upstream Neighbor Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No
>>>Sub-TLVs
>>> 26	Downstream Neighbor Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No
>>> Sub-TLVs
>>>
>>> Please see
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>>>
>>>
>>> ACTION 3:
>>>
>>> IANA has registered the following Return Codes:
>>>
>>> 16	Proxy Ping not authorized.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> 17	Proxy Ping parameters need to be
>>> modified.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> 18	MPLS Echo Request could not be
>>>sent.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> 19	Replying router has FEC mapping for topmost
>>> FEC.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>>
>>> Please see
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>>>
>>>
>>> ACTION 4:
>>>
>>> IANA has created the following registry:
>>>
>>> Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23
>>> Reference
>>> [RFC4379][RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>>
>>> Range 	Registration Procedures
>>> 0-16383	Standards Action
>>> 16384-31743	Specification Required
>>> 32768-49161	Standards Action
>>> 49162-64511	Specification Required
>>>
>>> Sub-Type 	Sub-TLV Name 	Reference 	Comment
>>> 0	Reserved	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	
>>> 1	Next Hop	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	
>>> 2-64511	Unassigned		
>>> 64512-65535	Reserved for Vendor or Private Use	[RFC4379]
>>>
>>> Please see
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>>>
>>>
>>> ACTION 5:
>>>
>>> IANA has made this document an additional reference for the Downstream
>>> Mapping Address Type Registry, added the note "Each time a code point
>>>is
>>> assigned from this registry, unless the  same registration is made in
>>> both registries, the corresponding Next  Hop Address Type Registry must
>>> be marked "Reserved" to the top of the registry, and added the
>>>following
>>> registrations:
>>>
>>> 6	Reserved		[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> 7	Reserved		[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>>
>>> Please see
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>>>
>>>
>>> ACTION 6:
>>>
>>> IANA has created the following registry:
>>>
>>> Next Hop Address Type Registry
>>> Registration Procedure(s): Standards Action
>>> Reference: [RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> Note: Each time a code point is assigned from this registry, unless the
>>> same registration is made in both registries, the corresponding
>>> Downstream Address Mapping Registry must be marked "Reserved."
>>>
>>> Type 	Type of Next Hop 	Address Length 	IF Length 	Reference
>>> 0	Unassigned			
>>> 1	IPv4 Numbered	4	4	[RFC4379]
>>> 2	IPv4 Unnumbered	4	4	[RFC4379]
>>> 3	IPv6 Numbered	16	16	[RFC4379]
>>> 4	IPv6 Unnumbered	16	4	[RFC4379]
>>> 5	Reserved			[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> 6	IPv4 Protocol Adj	4	0	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> 7	IPv6 Protocol Adj	16	0	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>>> 8-255	Unassigned
>>>
>>> Please see
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>>>
>>>
>>> The updated list of Protocol Registries is available here:
>>>
>>> http://www.iana.org/protocols
>>>
>>> Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As soon as
>>>we
>>> receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor that this
>>> document's IANA Actions are complete. (If this document has a team of
>>> authors, one reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.)
>>>
>>> We'll update the reference when the RFC Editor notifies us that they've
>>> assigned a number.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Amanda Baber
>>> IANA Request Specialist
>>> ICANN
>>>
>>
>
>-- 
>
>
>Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]