IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 21 May 2013 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 9509E21F8FE8 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sK4W21mpR7AD for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D6821F8F69 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4LNtRuN001738; Wed, 22 May 2013 00:55:27 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4LNtQGq001720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 22 May 2013 00:55:27 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Gregory Mirsky' <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
References: <012901ce567e$36ebe3a0$a4c3aae0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <012901ce567e$36ebe3a0$a4c3aae0$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:55:26 +0100
Message-ID: <012a01ce567e$aaec6450$00c52cf0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHjlrqD5TCYuhB4I6CUrBwlvWSptZjlz2cw
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv@tools.ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, 'Lizhong Jin' <lizho.jin@gmail.com>, 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>, mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 21 May 2013 23:55:36 -0000

Oh,

I forgot to check the I-D!

> > . Section 3, if motivation of this document is to negate MUST in
> > Section 3 of RFC 5586 that ACH TLV Header preceeds G-ACh message,
> > then would following sufficiently express it: "A G-ACh message MAY
> > NOT be preceeded by an ACH TLV Header."
> 
> 1. "MAY NOT" is the stuff of RFC 6919, not RFC 2119. So you mean "MUST
>    NOT".
> 2. Doesn't deleting the whole section achieve the effect?
> 
> I suppose we could add an explicit statement if people feel strongly.

Section 3 *is* that explicit statement. So you are only asking about s/MUST
NOT/MAY NOT/.

I don't believe that makes sense.

Cheers,
Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email