Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the response. Please see below (I removed sections that don't 
seem to need further discussion.)

Thanks!

Ben.

On 19 Nov 2015, at 11:19, Gregory Mirsky wrote:

[...]

>
> I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits:
>
> Comment:
> =========
> - 4.1, paragraph 3:
> Is it reasonable for a TLV in this standards-action registry to be 
> have sub-tlvs with reduced registration requirements?  (And if so, is 
> there a reason to exclude specifications that are not RFCs?)
> GIM>> Yes. This is how it is done for all standard track registry TLVs 
> for the entire LSP ping.

Okay,

> And yes we want RFCs to define the sub-TLVs (if the come out of the 
> Specification need range) just because they go into a standard track 
> specified TLV.

That would make sense to me for a standards-action requirement. But 
requiring experimental RFCs seems to narrow down the options a lot, 
while keeping the bar fairly low. That seems more like a procedural hoop 
than a check on spec maturity.

In any case, I leave it to the proponents to do the Right Thing, even if 
the right thing means ignoring my comment :-)


[...]