Re: [mpls] [IANA #815506] Protocol Action: 'Proxy MPLS Echo Request' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05.txt)

"George Swallow (swallow)" <swallow@cisco.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <swallow@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@virtual.ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A59821B3102; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843BB1B30F5 for <xfilter-draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 BubpDIb1KMX7 for <xfilter-draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (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 AA2EF1B30FB for <draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com ([173.37.142.89]:43298) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_128_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <swallow@cisco.com>) id 1YgIBO-0004pF-55 for draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 12:32:11 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5006; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428607930; x=1429817530; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=The4eRGCXKmjPNtswA9SHdZVSBc/gBxbGacqOy92lIQ=; b=Hsx+HpUkgKNfGYEqN2ikXDFlP0o78m0+zjP5IWiy9XI+SKjoQkyAdcoA //tGdQ8ymZuT7t6sImOtFAbkmlG3q3SntGUNrDUT7TRj/8faYf+v5oWfH XlJ7eLBW3v9VB4MziZRlF9zoZRlXjMZdHt7QhC5rTg/Jt6NZJm845KZY3 A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AWBQBM0iZV/40NJK1cgwhSVwUFxEYJgVOGAQKBRzgUAQEBAQEBAX2EIAIEOj8SAQg2BT0lAgQOBQmIIQgFzlEBAQEBAQEBAQIBAQEBAQEBAQEZiyuBPYM/B4QtBY5rghaKC4EdgzeHD4F6UQaCY4NLIoIQI4E8b4FEfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,551,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="139816440"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2015 19:32:01 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t39JW0hH030531 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 19:32:01 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.175]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 14:32:00 -0500
From: "George Swallow (swallow)" <swallow@cisco.com>
To: "drafts-approval@iana.org" <drafts-approval@iana.org>
Thread-Topic: [IANA #815506] Protocol Action: 'Proxy MPLS Echo Request' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHQclPf7TlV22YwkUeC9dZHZlXeyJ1FI8sA
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:32:00 +0000
Message-ID: <D14C4BC4.38FFB%swallow@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.2.9-9412-1428535758-227.815506-7-0@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
x-originating-ip: [10.131.118.57]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <309839FFBF3A6643B2A42F9A3E48C1FC@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 173.37.142.89
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: swallow@cisco.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
Resent-To: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietf.org
Resent-Message-Id: <20150409193211.AA2EF1B30FB@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 12:32:11 -0700
Resent-From: swallow@cisco.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools/h4UVicmNsCZDz3gjr6Gl8xJXFQQ>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/nJxpGYZc_bJSjCwPrkpakmkY2o8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [IANA #815506] Protocol Action: 'Proxy MPLS Echo Request' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05.txt)
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: <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: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:32:17 -0000

Amanda -

These look fine to me.

Thanks!

George

On 4/8/15 7:29 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" <drafts-approval@iana.org> wrote:

>Dear Authors:
>
>ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED
>
>We've completed the IANA Actions for the following RFC-to-be:
>
>draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05
>
>NOTE: The following have been converted to lower case: "could" in TBA-9;
>"marked" in the notes attached to the registration procedures for the
>Downstream Mapping and Next Hop registries.
>
>QUESTION: The existing sub-TLV registries list notes for each
>registration range. The new sub-TLV registry for Proxy Echo Parameters
>doesn't, because I couldn't find a source for those notes in RFC 4379.
>
>Should those notes ("This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional
>TLVs that require an error message if not recognized," etc.) be included
>in this registry's registration procedures? If so, are these included or
>implied in RFC 4379? If there isn't a source for them in RFC 4379,
>they'll have to be spelled out in this document's IANA Considerations
>section. 
>
>ACTION 1:
>
>IANA has registered the following Message Types:
>
>3	MPLS Proxy Ping Request	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>4	MPLS Proxy Ping Reply	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>
>Please see
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>
>
>ACTION 2:
>
>IANA has registered the following TLVs:
>
>23	Proxy Echo 
>Parameters	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	[http://www.iana.org/assignme
>nts/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#sub-tlv-23]
>24	Reply-to Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No Sub-TLVs
>25	Upstream Neighbor Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No Sub-TLVs
>26	Downstream Neighbor Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No
>Sub-TLVs
>
>Please see
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>
>
>ACTION 3:
>
>IANA has registered the following Return Codes:
>
>16	Proxy Ping not authorized.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>17	Proxy Ping parameters need to be
>modified.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>18	MPLS Echo Request could not be sent.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>19	Replying router has FEC mapping for topmost
>FEC.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>
>Please see
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>
>
>ACTION 4:
>
>IANA has created the following registry:
>
>Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23
>Reference
>[RFC4379][RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>
>Range 	Registration Procedures
>0-16383	Standards Action
>16384-31743	Specification Required
>32768-49161	Standards Action
>49162-64511	Specification Required
>
>Sub-Type 	Sub-TLV Name 	Reference 	Comment
>0	Reserved	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	
>1	Next Hop	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	
>2-64511	Unassigned		
>64512-65535	Reserved for Vendor or Private Use	[RFC4379]
>
>Please see
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>
>
>ACTION 5:
>
>IANA has made this document an additional reference for the Downstream
>Mapping Address Type Registry, added the note "Each time a code point is
>assigned from this registry, unless the  same registration is made in
>both registries, the corresponding Next  Hop Address Type Registry must
>be marked "Reserved" to the top of the registry, and added the following
>registrations:
>
>6	Reserved		[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>7	Reserved		[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>
>Please see
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>
>
>ACTION 6:
>
>IANA has created the following registry:
>
>Next Hop Address Type Registry
>Registration Procedure(s): Standards Action
>Reference: [RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>Note: Each time a code point is assigned from this registry, unless the
>same registration is made in both registries, the corresponding
>Downstream Address Mapping Registry must be marked "Reserved."
>
>Type 	Type of Next Hop 	Address Length 	IF Length 	Reference
>0	Unassigned			
>1	IPv4 Numbered	4	4	[RFC4379]
>2	IPv4 Unnumbered	4	4	[RFC4379]
>3	IPv6 Numbered	16	16	[RFC4379]
>4	IPv6 Unnumbered	16	4	[RFC4379]
>5	Reserved			[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>6	IPv4 Protocol Adj	4	0	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>7	IPv6 Protocol Adj	16	0	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>8-255	Unassigned
>
>Please see
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters
>
>
>The updated list of Protocol Registries is available here:
> 
>http://www.iana.org/protocols
>
>Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As soon as we
>receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor that this
>document's IANA Actions are complete. (If this document has a team of
>authors, one reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.)
>
>We'll update the reference when the RFC Editor notifies us that they've
>assigned a number.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Amanda Baber
>IANA Request Specialist
>ICANN
>