IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: (with COMMENT)

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 15 February 2021 08:19 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 648583A0E1C; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 00:19:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 3AjQH7M4xxq6; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 00:19:11 -0800 (PST)
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 6C80D3A0E1E; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 00:19:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [124.104.184.212]) (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 DB73A326109; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 09:19:05 +0100 (CET)
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org
References: <161333408345.24758.689990498850486405@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <c4af9b92-d2ab-71ba-1211-d5ade9a72d23@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:19:02 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <161333408345.24758.689990498850486405@ietfa.amsl.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/Jfd_HrJ6zlUE8Czg8VC5vuZ_2QM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:19:13 -0000

Roman,

Inline pleas

On 15/02/2021 04:21, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: 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-lsp-ping-registries-update/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for writing this clarifying document.
> 
> ** Section 3.1.  Per “All TLVs and sub-TLVs in the range 32768-65535 may be
> silently dropped, stepped over or an error message sent …”, is “stepped over”
> the same as ignored?
> 
> ** Section 3.1.1.
> -- “If the unrecognized TLV and sub-TLV is from … a Return Code of 2 … must be
> …”, should a normative MUST be used here?”
> 
> -- “If the unrecognized TLV and sub-TLV is from … the TLVs may be …”, should a
> normative MAY be used here?

The rationale we had when writing this is that section 3 is descriptive, 
we describe the changes we want to make.

Sectin 6 (IANA considerations) is the specification, we specify what we 
want IANA to do. I believe that the normative language is correctly used 
in section 6.

/Loa

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 

-- 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email