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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 837A912D7FD; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 LOFTWJF9_PIF; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com (mail-wm0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]) (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 6402212D6FD; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id l6so3848617wml.3; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:15:25 -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=uOEXXOpMEX9w7ZXAZ4C9K/S8XW9hUaTt/E3DeDO3jLY=; b=h3E8HEGN2LD1ORAAoXjJwxgo+8TXeLd+WlUI0yzgobb4AaWXompj72iqowTEnrnOuf Ta4hQ8qKOeetXT5pedWPV4KJy9vEJreo6gv4/KjcpGyRrYaCSSUVvFLwN7Uazt7m1oXj YMgnGUFvfXWU2u0MbmgmcSW3MPGTwwrwy69GfhRVZhJ8hj+Mpm9PhCIZPvOOZXC0ktqD 5cMMtcg/oIhAMhl+mEGENEh8a2SK90l7Gn3ad4b9t9xYXjrhAYURppd2CyubtAbQ/6ID dQbn4efbrzi+aIT9xKvbOZthe5kh3Pf/lEo/Ae8iYqHA+jCDbuIWepjaB/F37MHwFcpQ RtDA==
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=uOEXXOpMEX9w7ZXAZ4C9K/S8XW9hUaTt/E3DeDO3jLY=; b=OKwYYYmfB5K1+CPNhVEDtmdUU0obzSW9Cu7dA9NPpQRIo0TW6xLf0Rh7ll5/ziA4Ry E664Ls1FUEkbJtXEEfKL8MXwNkbF+brLf3+Tm1VWA6DUTme2D/2O3Sjuotn3pmwL7xtH ID6graQYk/WZBtpHr3TVB4ygRZ+t15eq75NVWlIYml5siQ7CjfrFo6ZICblcWQqCyhBj tGAMnKj8kSYrgxPY50t5irkTmOuB/1Ls4LLbswd5kX/h9x8PHxaVbQWfBocHG3cph37V riAwXE18NBHurh7jXz0VRVR/Ht9DuzHGp0GkYUvEGBNd/QGmDVnqXEVBwiK4tS/Im87U aPHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKwrBK/vfYhbP31un9+yXREFJ2ueLCrSRf7KTkQZJ0TUVtPOw8XoSmAoltqE529Bg==
X-Received: by 10.194.133.161 with SMTP id pd1mr3574016wjb.66.1460031324446; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l124sm8653894wmf.11.2016.04.07.05.15.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160107043320.4920.88068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57064F5A.2050401@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:15:22 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160107043320.4920.88068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/L_20az0Ety1B5MPXDpx-uFZgih4>
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:15:29 -0000


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