Re: [mpls] Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Yes.

You can use [This.I-D] or the formulation you have.

Please post.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Osborne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 21 March 2014 13:40
> To: Loa Andersson
> Cc: Adrian Farrel; Eric Osborne; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
> 
> OK, so:
> 
> ---
> 8.  IANA Considerations
> 
>    IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
>    as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
>    show [RFC6378] and [RFC-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-03].  Note that this
>    action provides documentation of an action already taken by IANA but
>    not recorded in RFC 6378
> ---
> 
> Adrian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eric
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I'm OK with that text, however it is a documentation of change to a
> > standards track RFC. I'm not sure that it is a good idea to ask the
> > RFC Editor to remove the text.
> >
> > I think the RFC Editor will change it to "IANA has marked the
> > value 0 ..." I think this should stay in the document.
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> >
> > On 2014-03-21 12:44, Eric Osborne wrote:
> >>
> >> OK.  Here's the exact text I've got:
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 8.  IANA Considerations
> >>
> >>     IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
> >>     as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
> >>     show [RFC6378] and [RFC-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-03].  Note that this
> >>     action provides documentation of an action already taken by IANA but
> >>     not recorded in RFC 6378.
> >>
> >>     Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
> >>     RFC
> >> ---
> >>
> >>
> >> I wasn't sure if [This.ID] was intended to provoke variable
> >> substitution, nor was I sure whether the square brackets meant that
> >> the self-reference should also be a normative reference (to the
> >> eventual This.RFC).  It seems overkill for a document to cite itself
> >> as a normative reference ("in order to understand this document, you
> >> should read it")...but on the other hand, perhaps we should start
> >> doing that for all drafts that come out of MPLS now.
> >>
> >> I took the exact formatting from the reference section of the MPLS PSC
> >> TLV Registry, which does it like this:
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Reference
> >>    [RFC6378][RFC-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-04]
> >> ---
> >>
> >> and I did not cite the draft itself in its normative reference section.
> >>
> >> Please let me know if this exact text is acceptable and then I will
> >> post the draft.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> eric
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> I can live with the:
> >>>
> >>> "...update the references to show [RFC6378], [This ID]".
> >>>
> >>> It is correct that the action was taken for RFC 6378, but it is
> >>> also correct that it was never mentioned in RFC 6378. So I guess
> >>> that what we need to say is:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
> >>>   as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
> >>>   show [RFC6378], [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides
> >>>
> >>>   documentation of an action already taken by IANA but not recorded
> >>>   in RFC 6378. This is an update to RFC 6378."
> >>>
> >>> /Loa
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2014-03-20 17:26, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The action was taken for RFC 6378, so it should be mentioned.
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Eric Osborne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>>> Sent: 20 March 2014 16:18
> >>>>> To: Adrian Farrel
> >>>>> Cc: Eric Osborne; [e-mail]
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK.
> >>>>> Loa's suggestion is
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "... update the reference to RFC 6378 to say [this ID]"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adrian's is "...update the references to show [RFC6378], [This ID]".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think Loa's makes more sense...why would we have the registry
> >>>>> allocation point to both 6378 and thisID if 6378 doesn't say anything?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whatever text you guys agree on, I'll use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> eric
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, you're right. Should be a comma not a period.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Eric Osborne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>>>>> Sent: 20 March 2014 14:39
> >>>>>>> To: Adrian Farrel
> >>>>>>> Cc: Eric Osborne; [e-mail]
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Adrian-
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     Thanks for these.  I am OK with them and will add them to the
> >>>>>>> version I post next. I'm not clear on the nuances of your IANA text,
> >>>>>>> though.  You say:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
> >>>>>>> as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
> >>>>>>> show [RFC6378].
> >>>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides documentation of an
> >>>>>>> action
> >>>>>>> already taken by IANA but not recorded in RFC 6378.
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What exactly does the [This.I-D] do in its own sentence?  Did you
> >>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>> something like " update the references to show [RFC6378] and
> >>>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action..." or is there something subtle
> >>>>>>> I'm not picking up on with your original phrasing?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> eric
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Eric,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A couple of discussion points on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu (which
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> currently
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> in IESG evaluation) have given rise to two small proposed additions
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. I think this warrants a very small section of its own...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> x.y  PSC TLV Format
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [RFC6378] defines the capability to carry TLVs in the PSC messages.
> >>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> section
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> defines the format to be used by all such TLVs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Type field (T)
> >>>>>>>> A two octet field that encodes a type value in network byte order.
> >>>>>>>> The
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> type
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> values are recorded in the IANA registry "MPLS PSC TLV Registry".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Length field (L)
> >>>>>>>> A two octet field that encodes the length in octets of the Value
> >>>>>>>> field
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> network byte order. The value of this field MUST be a multiple of 4.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Value field (V)
> >>>>>>>> The contents of the TLV. This field MUST be a multiple of 4 octets
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> contain explicit padding.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. There was a trivial snafu with the 0 value in the "MPLS PSC TLV
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Registry". It
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> was agreed that 0 would be reserved, but this was not recorded in
> >>>>>>>> RFC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 6378.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Therefore, the IANA section of draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates should
> >>>>>>>> include
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> text...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to show
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [RFC6378].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides documentation of an
> >>>>>>>> action
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> already
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> taken by IANA but not recorded in RFC 6378.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hope everyone is comfortable with this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Adrian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> mpls mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> >>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> >>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> > Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> > Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]