The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Return Path Specified LSP Ping' (draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-15.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping/ Technical Summary This document defines extensions to the data-plane failure-detection protocol for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) known as "LSP Ping". These extensions allow selection of the LSP to use for the echo reply return path. Enforcing a specific return path can be used to verify bidirectional connectivity and also increase LSP ping robustness. Working Group Summary There has not been anything in the working group process that needs to be mentioned, other than we had a strong support to accept it as a working group draft, after that the discussion on the mailing were low for almost a year, but has pick up lately and we have had a good discussion, where all comments been focused on improving the and no indication that the draft is not needed. The document has support in the working group, and operators has participated in writing it, and has been well reviewed. After improving the IANA section (mostly off-line) the document shepherd now believes we have a stable document ready to be published. A further two months' discussion focused on a discussion of the IANA section of this document. We have earlier made "early allocations" of code points for this document, after discussion we have decided not use them, but reuse (identical) sub-TLVs allocated by RFC4379. A spin-off of the IANA discussion for this document is that we are discussing/thiking of writing an update to the IANA allocation of RFC4379. The AD review raised still further issues with the IANA section and this delayed the document by many months while the working group grappled with an understanding of how the registries were supposed to work. Agreement has finally been reached leading to the latest revision and a new draft in the working group to clarify the registries for future generations. Document Quality This is a very minor update to the LSP-Ping that does not have any affect on the operations of existing LSP Ping implementations and deployments, even if nodes with the new functionality are introduced. The working group mailing list has been polled for existing implementations and intentions to implement this specification. We know of vendors that intend to implement and at least one operator that plans to deploy this functionality. Personnel Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the document shepherd. Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the responsible AD. RFC Editor Note Section 3.2. OLD The A bit and B bit set MUST NOT both be set NEW The A flag and B flag MUST NOT both be set Section 6.4 OLD The range of 0x0008-0xfffb is not allocated and reserved for future extensions and is allocated via Standard Action, the range of 0xfffc- 0xffff is for Experimental Use. NEW The range of 0x0006-0xfffb is not allocated and reserved for future extensions and is allocated via Standard Action, the range of 0xfffc- 0xffff is for Experimental Use. END === IANA Note IANA, please see the text in the RFC Editor Note
