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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]> 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
>>
>

-- 


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