Re: [mpls] Retiring ACH TLVs

[Dan Frost <[e-mail]>]

Full support, and sooner the better.  :)

-d

On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 06:08:34PM +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> ACH TLVs keep popping up and causing Stewart and me trouble. Mainly it is about explaining why no-one actually wants to use them (i.e., when each new ACH Type is defined and has a "No TLVs" written for it, we get asked "why not?").
> 
> It seems to us that ACH TLVs are an idea that has been rejected. Initially we thought they might be used (especially for identifiers), but there seems to be good opinion that handling generic TLVs would be a pain.
> 
> Since I was heavily responsible for insisting that ACH TLVs were included in RFC 5586, it seems reasonable that I do the work to fix it.
> 
> The I-D below retires ACH TLVs and handles the necessary registry changes.
> 
> Note, of course, that structured data are still possible within individual ACHs if the protocol spec for an individual ACH decides to have them.
> 
> We're directing this work to the MPLS working group because that is where 5586 was written. I have BCC'ed PWE3, L2VPN, and BFD for information. 
> 
> Thanks for any comments.
> 
> As humble WG contributors we would be enthusiastic to see early WG adoption and last call :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian