Re: [Pals] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yuanlong,

> On 18 Sep 2016, at 10:19, Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alexey,
>  
> Similar to LDP protocol as specified in RFC5036 and RFC4447, we may add the following texts to the document:
> The Optional Sub-TLV structure is defined as follows:
>  
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    | Sub-TLV Type  |    Length     |    Variable Length Value      |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                         Variable Length Value                 |
>    |                             "                                 |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>  
>    The Optional Sub-TLV Type values will be specified by IANA in "IANA
>    Allocations for ICCP MC-PON" [IANA-TODO].
>  
>    The Length field is defined as the length of the Sub-TLV Type
>    including the Sub-TLV Type field and Length field itself.  Processing of
>    the Sub-TLV Types should continue when unknown Sub-TLV Type
> parameters are encountered, and they MUST be silently ignored.
>  
> BTW, the IANA maybe need to allocate Optional Sub-TLV Type for ICCP MC-PON in future.
> Do you think the texts are acceptable?

Yes, this looks reasonable to me. Thank you!
>  
> Thanks,
> Yuanlong
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 4:39 PM
> To: Jiangyuanlong
> Cc: The IESG; [e-mail]; Andrew G. Malis; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: (with DISCUSS)
>  
> Hi,
>  
> > On 18 Sep 2016, at 09:11, Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexey,
> >
> > 1) For this protocol version (001), no Optional Sub-TLV is defined yet, thus the field does not exist on the wire. This field is intended to give a guideline on future protocol extensions, but there is no details of sub-TLVs format yet, and we would like to defer the format and how to process it to future versions of the protocol.
>  
> It is important to think about extensibility model now, before you need to start adding it in a rush in the future. You should define the sub-TLV format now (no need to define any sub-TLVs), so that it can be handled in a forward compatible manner in the future.
>  
> You also need to describe what should happen in version 001, if a sub-TLV is discovered. Is it an error or should they be just ignored?
>  
> > 2) System Priority is a 2-octets value assigned by management or administration policy, the OLT with the numerically lower value of System Priority has the higher priority. We will clarify it in the next revision.
>  
> Sounds good.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yuanlong
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:57 PM
> > To: The IESG
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Andrew G. Malis; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: (with DISCUSS)
> >
> > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: Discuss
> >
> > 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-pals-mc-pon/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I have a couple of minor blocking points I would like to discuss, but they should be easy to fix:
> >
> > 1) In 2.1.1 and other sub-sections: should sub-TLV format be defined now, even though you don't specify any sub-TLV? (or is it already specified in another document?) Should recipients ignore unrecognized sub-TLVs or do something else? Please clarify.
> >
> > 2) In 2.1.3: what is "system priority"? This is not explained. Please either add an explanation or a reference to a document that defines it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>