Re: [mpls] LSP Ping DS Flags and Multipath Info Types

Nobo,

My take on this is that when we now see that the authors of new drafts
will want to allocate code point from "name spaces" that are not
maintained by IANA.

When this is the case we need to move the earlier allocated code points
under IANA control.

There are two ways of doing this

- we can include the "old" allocations in the IANA section
   draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping;
   You will have create the "new/old" registries populated with the
   code points of both the new draft and what is in the old RFC.

- or we can write a new I-D that need be published as an RFC before
   draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping; the IANA section of this draft
   should only include the "old" allocations.
   An implication of choosing this alternative is that the IANA section
   of draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping will need to request code point
   allocation in the format "TBA1, TBA2, ..."

/Loa

On 2013-11-14 19:06, Nobo Akiya (nobo) wrote:
> Hi Kireeti, George, Nitin,
>
> I’m reaching out to authors of RFC4379/RFC6424 as part of follow up to
> comments received for LSP ping for entropy label draft.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-00
>
> Authors would like to extend DS Flags (add 2 flags) and extend Multipath
> Information Type (add 1 new type).
>
> However, IANA does not maintain DS Flags nor Multipath Information Type,
> and wanted to check on background/thoughts with original authors of the
> LSP ping mechanism.
>
> Should DS Flags and Multipath Information Types be maintained by IANA?
>
> Thank you.
>
> -Nobo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64