Re: [mpls] Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates

[Eric Osborne <[e-mail]>]

OK, so:

---
8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
   as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
   show [RFC6378] and [RFC-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-03].  Note that this
   action provides documentation of an action already taken by IANA but
   not recorded in RFC 6378
---

Adrian?




eric


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm OK with that text, however it is a documentation of change to a
> standards track RFC. I'm not sure that it is a good idea to ask the
> RFC Editor to remove the text.
>
> I think the RFC Editor will change it to "IANA has marked the
> value 0 ..." I think this should stay in the document.
>
> /Loa
>
>
> On 2014-03-21 12:44, Eric Osborne wrote:
>>
>> OK.  Here's the exact text I've got:
>>
>>
>> --
>> 8.  IANA Considerations
>>
>>     IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
>>     as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
>>     show [RFC6378] and [RFC-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-03].  Note that this
>>     action provides documentation of an action already taken by IANA but
>>     not recorded in RFC 6378.
>>
>>     Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
>>     RFC
>> ---
>>
>>
>> I wasn't sure if [This.ID] was intended to provoke variable
>> substitution, nor was I sure whether the square brackets meant that
>> the self-reference should also be a normative reference (to the
>> eventual This.RFC).  It seems overkill for a document to cite itself
>> as a normative reference ("in order to understand this document, you
>> should read it")...but on the other hand, perhaps we should start
>> doing that for all drafts that come out of MPLS now.
>>
>> I took the exact formatting from the reference section of the MPLS PSC
>> TLV Registry, which does it like this:
>>
>> ---
>> Reference
>>    [RFC6378][RFC-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-04]
>> ---
>>
>> and I did not cite the draft itself in its normative reference section.
>>
>> Please let me know if this exact text is acceptable and then I will
>> post the draft.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> eric
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I can live with the:
>>>
>>> "...update the references to show [RFC6378], [This ID]".
>>>
>>> It is correct that the action was taken for RFC 6378, but it is
>>> also correct that it was never mentioned in RFC 6378. So I guess
>>> that what we need to say is:
>>>
>>>
>>> "IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
>>>   as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
>>>   show [RFC6378], [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides
>>>
>>>   documentation of an action already taken by IANA but not recorded
>>>   in RFC 6378. This is an update to RFC 6378."
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-03-20 17:26, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The action was taken for RFC 6378, so it should be mentioned.
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Eric Osborne [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: 20 March 2014 16:18
>>>>> To: Adrian Farrel
>>>>> Cc: Eric Osborne; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
>>>>>
>>>>> OK.
>>>>> Loa's suggestion is
>>>>>
>>>>> "... update the reference to RFC 6378 to say [this ID]"
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian's is "...update the references to show [RFC6378], [This ID]".
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Loa's makes more sense...why would we have the registry
>>>>> allocation point to both 6378 and thisID if 6378 doesn't say anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever text you guys agree on, I'll use.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eric
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you're right. Should be a comma not a period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Eric Osborne [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>> Sent: 20 March 2014 14:39
>>>>>>> To: Adrian Farrel
>>>>>>> Cc: Eric Osborne; [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Adrian-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Thanks for these.  I am OK with them and will add them to the
>>>>>>> version I post next. I'm not clear on the nuances of your IANA text,
>>>>>>> though.  You say:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
>>>>>>> as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
>>>>>>> show [RFC6378].
>>>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides documentation of an
>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>> already taken by IANA but not recorded in RFC 6378.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What exactly does the [This.I-D] do in its own sentence?  Did you
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>> something like " update the references to show [RFC6378] and
>>>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action..." or is there something subtle
>>>>>>> I'm not picking up on with your original phrasing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A couple of discussion points on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu (which
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in IESG evaluation) have given rise to two small proposed additions
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. I think this warrants a very small section of its own...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> x.y  PSC TLV Format
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [RFC6378] defines the capability to carry TLVs in the PSC messages.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> section
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> defines the format to be used by all such TLVs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Type field (T)
>>>>>>>> A two octet field that encodes a type value in network byte order.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> type
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> values are recorded in the IANA registry "MPLS PSC TLV Registry".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Length field (L)
>>>>>>>> A two octet field that encodes the length in octets of the Value
>>>>>>>> field
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> network byte order. The value of this field MUST be a multiple of 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Value field (V)
>>>>>>>> The contents of the TLV. This field MUST be a multiple of 4 octets
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> contain explicit padding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. There was a trivial snafu with the 0 value in the "MPLS PSC TLV
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Registry". It
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> was agreed that 0 would be reserved, but this was not recorded in
>>>>>>>> RFC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 6378.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore, the IANA section of draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates should
>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> text...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to show
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [RFC6378].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides documentation of an
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> taken by IANA but not recorded in RFC 6378.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope everyone is comfortable with this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]