Re: [mpls] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 06 November 2017 20:51 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 C7B7113FBCC; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:51:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 YHfM6BE76q8L; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 A6E4613FB72; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vA6KpBut023145 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:51:12 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "tsaad@cisco.com" <tsaad@cisco.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "loa@pi.nu" <loa@pi.nu>
References: <150533988103.30476.13600138080026416777.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CY4PR05MB2823DD22DB9FA6920885BA94A9500@CY4PR05MB2823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <8d344cfb-19d5-eaf2-c4b1-c7b60f22ac0b@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:51:06 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR05MB2823DD22DB9FA6920885BA94A9500@CY4PR05MB2823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/JYXaFQ4CNspk6vKIONHaRPytsz0>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:51:15 -0000
On 11/6/17 14:37, Chris Bowers wrote: > Adam, > > Thanks for the feedback. See response below with [CB]. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 4:58 PM > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt@ietf.org; tsaad@cisco.com; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; loa@pi.nu; mpls@ietf.org > Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 4.1 defines some reserved bits in the new MRT capability TLV format. > Typically, we specify that reserved bits are set to 0 on send and ignored on receive, to allow for future definition of a purpose for them. > > [CB] MRT capability TLV in this document is an instance of the "Capability Parameter" TLV as defined in RFC 5561. So the S-bit and the remaining reserved flags are defined in RFC 5561. This document repeats information from RFC 5561 about the TLV format. RFC 5561 doesn't explicitly state that these reserved bits are set to 0 on send and ignored on receive. However, I believe that is the intention of RFC 5561. I think it might be confusing for the current document to be more precise than RFC5561 is about this point, since 5561 is the document actually defining the "Capability Parameter" TLV. Thanks. That seems like a reasonable rationale for not adding language to this document. /a