Re: [Teas] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: (with COMMENT)

Jeong-dong Ryoo <ryoo@etri.re.kr> Tue, 19 April 2022 10:54 UTC

Dooray-Meta-Signature: hEPB/YSaviMy+dZSl+ymktVFNr2mkCYTbxumVECmmz/dvY/3uphrv uKCz4jZZyfg6s915o7W1VucUCd+W2Cmmzb1Yz6hTpO6WkJGj6mVBaiigzlMafiLUfPLuVCEGghQD 6h4WyFM4T6X/sHqnf2tKykA6SRHVU9TsMbFTbRePlWgOfqN6u5M3J1tLyKOsroCemVjB3yrmAxNL urT2eToCwUiRh2A9AfZmHSpJ8GW146g+kjelb3zJouvP7C4v1j5z+3M2u7qgRe8+G5UPfCl1v7M8 tD/mX8oZc3SDFIaylfOI+31yegaRQQbkWIWeMyA6RVgJr68i5gAPanEhgNYVgWzZhkPIz0jYs6ZW c5QsKw=
From: Jeong-dong Ryoo <ryoo@etri.re.kr>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net
Message-ID: <oqctk72uf196.oqctk72ua6br.g1@dooray.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Importance: Normal
Sender: ryoo@etri.re.kr
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:27:45 +0900
References: <164917651822.19418.11624121290058430670@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <164917651822.19418.11624121290058430670@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/YP8Vu0mGJuDhup6_azotqzoEHZg>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Dear Francesca,


Thank you for your review and comments. 

According to RFC 4872, only one value SHOULD be set at a time for the 6-bit LSP (Protection Type) Flags. 5 bits have already been defined in RFC 4872, and one remaining bit is being used by this draft. Therefore, without relaxing the “one value at a time” restriction in RFC 4872 and confirming such a change doesn’t impact any existing implementations adversely, it doesn't seem possible to define any more types in the future. Therefore, we would like to keep it as is now. 


Best regards,

Jeong-dong (on behalf of the co-authors)




-----Original Message-----
From:  "Francesca Palombini via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org>
To:     "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; 
Cc:      <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp@ietf.org>;   <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;   <teas@ietf.org>;   <vbeeram@juniper.net>;   <vbeeram@juniper.net>; 
Sent:  2022-04-06 (수) 01:35:30 (UTC+09:00)
Subject: Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: (with COMMENT)

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp/



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

Thank you for the work on this document.

Only one comment: I had the same reaction as Paul, I believe it would have been
good to create IANA registries for the LSP (Protection Type) Flags, although
that is really a comment on RFC 4872 (which by the way already uses what I
consider IANA-compliant terminology by stating "The following values are
defined.  All other values are reserved."). But since this is a general
comment, which can make more sense if other flags are expected to be defined in
the future, I leave it up to the working group and AD to make the best choice.

Francesca

[Teas] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draf… Francesca Palombini via Datatracker
Re: [Teas] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on … Jeong-dong Ryoo