Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Adrian,

Yes this works for me.

/Loa

On 2013-06-28 14:25, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> However TLVs might be carried in the GACh messages, the disticnction
>> is not entirely clear in the draft, can the authors please make
>> this clear.
>
> Happily.
>
> The current version defines "ACH TLV" as "TLV constructs that can be carried in
> messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between the fixed header fields
> and the G-ACh message."
>
> Thus, retiring ACH TLVs, obviously means only removing this concept and not any
> other TLV-related concept.
>
> I would propose to change the last sentence of Section 1 as follows:
>
> OLD
>     This document states that ACH TLVs as specified in RFC 5586 are not
>     useful and might be harmful.  It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the
>     ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in
>     Section 4 of this document.
> NEW
>     This document states that ACH TLVs as specified in RFC 5586 are not
>     useful and might be harmful.  It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the
>     ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in
>     Section 4 of this document.  This document makes no comment about the
>     use of TLVs in other places.  In particular, proposals to use TLVs
>     within ACH messages, or as an appendage to ACH messages are not in
>     scope of this document.
> END
>
> Does that work?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]