Tom,
Thanks for comments, see inline.
Adrian,
As Shepherd uou might have an opinion on some of my tampering with the
text below.
On 26/01/2021 20:41, tom petch wrote:
On 12/01/2021 22:15, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Updating the IANA MPLS
LSP Ping
Parameters'
<draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-06.txt> as Proposed
Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2021-01-26. Exceptionally,
comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
I have started a working copy of the document, and will post when
Deborah tell me.
A recent IESG queried whether or not IANA could be a Normative
Reference; this I-D makes me hope that that question is resolved.
Yes, we resolved this and the SPL terminology was approved by the IESG
and the comment from Murray Kucherawy was withdrawn.
Abstract LSP needs expanding, not a starred abbreviation
Fixed this.
Question: Do you think the document title also need to be updated?
RSC, DDMAP later, likewise
hmmm, this might be a can of wors, with quite substantial ripple
effects. But it you insist I can open it :).
The registry is defined in RFC 8029 with <RFC> (no expansion in it).
The <RSC> is in a part of the registry that isd not changed by this
document, and there is a clear reference to RFC 8029 where it is
expanded, so if I don't expand in the registry that in the registry that
would be an update to RFC 8029 . Doable! But the update/expansion would
be in a section where RSC (Return Subcode) is already expanded and the
text of RFC 8029 would flow badly.
There is one more thing that is not intended as a chage, the draft says
(RSC), but the registry says <RSC>, I have been looing for how to enter
< and > into xml, but not found it, can someone help?
I'm inclined to not expand <RSC> in the registry, maybe we could add a
note after the registry with the expansion and referencing the correct
paragraph in RFC 8029, section 3.1.
DDMAP is the same thing, it is correctly expanded in RFC 8029m which if
referenced. This is also a part of the registry that has not been changed.
sun-TLVs appears 37 times; perhaps sub-TLVs
fixed
/[[RFC8209]/[RFC8209]/
fixed
/Loa
3.1.1
'will be sent' perhaps MUST be
'may be silently ignored' perhaps MAY
I would like a second opinion on this, I think this is rather
description than specification.
6.1.3
'AM Problem/Delay' OAM?
fixed
/Loa
Tom Petch
Abstract
This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 that both define IANA
registries for MPLS LSP Ping. It also updates the description of the
procedures for the responses sent when an unknown or erroneous code
point is found. The updates are to clarify and align this name space
with recent developments.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
.
--
Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@xxxxxxxxx
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
