[mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)

["Alvaro Retana" <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support the publication, but I would like to see the update to RFC7110
clearly indicated — specially because the change modifies a “MUST”
behavior.

Section 3.1. (Reply via Specified Path Update) says that the "usage of
the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" without inclusion of a "Reply Path
TLV" is no longer invalid” — but "Reply via Specified Path (5)” (that
specific string of text) doesn’t show up in RFC7110, nor does the word
invalid.  In digging a little bit, I can see that Section 5.1. (Sending
an Echo Request) of RFC7110 says: “When sending an echo request…the Reply
Mode of the echo request MUST be set to "Reply via Specified Path", and a
Reply Path TLV MUST be carried…”   In the end, I’m assuming that the
update to RFC7110 is to change that text in 5.1 to something like “…the
TLV SHOULD be carried; if it isn’t then it indicates the reverse LSP…”. 
Please be clear.