Re: [mpls] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Ben,


On 18/02/2021 01:06, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> NEW:
>>         o RFC 8029 was published before RFC 8126 and uses the old
>>           terminology for some registration procedures, e.g "Vendor
>>           Private Use". RFC 8611 was published after RFC 8126 and uses
>>           the new terminology, e.g. "Private Use". Both "Vendor Private
>>           Use" and "Private Use has been removed and replaced with "First
>>           Come, First Served" code points.
> That looks accurate to me, and well phrased.
> I was not entirely sure whether we need the full complexity of it given
> that the text in question is in Section 6.2.3 that is scoped to a single
> sub-registry, and that sub-registry (IIRC) only lists the one RFC (8611) as
> reference, which hopefully means that it's currently only using a single
> set of terminology.
> 
> But to be clear, I am not objecting to your NEW version:)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
You maybe right, I will think about iot a bit and might use this text in 
the Introduction, and tweak what I right in Section 6.2.3 RFC 8611 and 
sub-TLV 6 specific.

/Loa

> Ben

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]