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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

wfm

/Loa

On 2014-03-21 14:40, Eric Osborne wrote:
> 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]

-- 


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