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

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 19 November 2015 23:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 3E7161B3794; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:42:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] autolearn=unavailable
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 zjNg2mZpRI2f; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8523B1B3793; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.10] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tAJNgfUS009593 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:42:41 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.10]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Gregory Mirsky" <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:42:41 -0600
Message-ID: <B1067C0E-FF03-452F-BAFB-73AD4162801D@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1122194430C@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <20151117030721.22342.71025.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1122193D907@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1122194430C@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5180)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/l4M8x-Nap9EKqHxuMRRMWWcIrR8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.all@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "rcallon@juniper.net" <rcallon@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 23:42:46 -0000

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 :-)


[...]