[mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)

"Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348741B59DE; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 JLX6zSptBzQr; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D037E1B59D8; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150930031111.861.10509.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:11:11 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/YuDdWspRGBLuOWoMFNuo7hIM5Cc>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:11:13 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: 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-relay-reply/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have some comments/questions:

1. TBD2 is the Relay Node Address Stack TLV Type.  There seems to be some
confusion in the text: Section 4.2. (Receiving an Echo Request)  says
that the "Type of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is chosen from the
range 32768 to 49161…” giving the impression that any value can be used,
while 8.2. (New TLV) in the IANA Considerations says that a "suggested
value should be assigned” giving me the impression that the assignment is
just a suggestion (and somehow reinforcing the text in 4.2), but the
original definition in 3.2. (Relay Node Address Stack) simply says that
the "value should be assigned by IANA”.  Assuming that you simply want an
assignment and that it would be what is used, please clean the text up; I
suggest just referring to the value as TBD2 (in 4.2 and 8.2) and
explicitly including the text about the assignment and the range (from
3.2) in 8.2.

2. Section 4.1. (Sending an Echo Request) says that the "Relay Node
Address Stack TLV MUST be carried in the Echo Request message if the
relay functionality is required”.  How does the initiator know that it
needs the functionality?

3. Section 4.2. (Receiving an Echo Request) "A second or more address
entries MAY also be added if necessary, depending on implementation.” 
Isn’t this document defining how the implementation should work?  What
are the cases where these additional entries may be added?