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

"Amanda Baber via RT" <drafts-approval@iana.org> Fri, 10 April 2015 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
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 3CE4B1B2D31; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:35:26 -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 24B381B2D30 for <xfilter-draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021] autolearn=no
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 zjsajH7HSq9X for <xfilter-draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:35:24 -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 F3E121B2CDB for <draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org ([192.0.33.81]:44328 helo=smtp1.lax.icann.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <iana-shared@icann.org>) id 1Ygdlz-0002IM-5u for draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:35:23 -0700
Received: from request3.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp1.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3AIZHu8030966 for <draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:35:17 GMT
Received: by request3.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 768D6C204D2; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:35:17 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: amanda.baber
From: Amanda Baber via RT <drafts-approval@iana.org>
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.2.9-32010-1428686687-402.815506-7-0@icann.org>
References: <RT-Ticket-815506@icann.org> <D14C4BC4.38FFB%swallow@cisco.com> <55276FAB.90404@pi.nu> <D14D7F73.10EE39%swallow@cisco.com> <rt-4.2.9-32010-1428686687-402.815506-7-0@icann.org>
Message-ID: <rt-4.2.9-18461-1428690917-558.815506-7-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #815506
X-Managed-BY: RT 4.2.9 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:35:17 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.0.33.81
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: iana-shared@icann.org
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: <20150410183523.F3E121B2CDB@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:35:23 -0700
Resent-From: iana-shared@icann.org
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools/QnnriJ5d-iH9tij1a4-uhtttwjA>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/oflOWV43ls3oDnNKntJ45OizoJU>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [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
Reply-To: drafts-approval@iana.org
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: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:35:26 -0000

Hi,

This is complete, and I think I see where these notes came from in RFC 4379:

Section 3. Packet Format

   "Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 0) are
   mandatory TLVs that MUST either be supported by an implementation or
   result in the return code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not
   understood") being sent in the echo response.

   "Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit
   equal to 1) are optional TLVs that SHOULD be ignored if the
   implementation does not understand or support them."

I'm assuming that the first paragraph equates to "This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional TLVs that require an error message if not recognized."

Section 7. IANA Considerations

   "Values from "Specification Required" ranges MUST be registered with
   IANA.  The request MUST be made via an Experimental RFC that
   describes the format and procedures for using the code point; the
   actual assignment is made during the IANA actions for the RFC."

I'll tell the RFC Editor the actions are complete.

Thanks!

Amanda

On Fri Apr 10 17:24:47 2015, swallow@cisco.com wrote:
> Yes.
> 
> On 4/10/15 2:37 AM, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
> 
> >George,
> >
> >In my Shepherd response to the IANA mail, I responded to "QUESTION"
> >(below) I said it is correct to add the notes to the sub-TLV registry
> >for Proxy Echo Parameters as we have for the existing sub-TLV
> >registries.
> >
> >Do you agree?
> >
> >/Loa
> >
> >On 2015-04-09 21:32, George Swallow (swallow) wrote:
> >> 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/assign
> >>>me
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >-- 
> >
> >
> >Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> >Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> >Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>