inline three times
On 27/01/2021 06:47, Loa Andersson wrote:
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
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and the comment from Murray Kucherawy was withdrawn.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?
No. Title is a identifier, something that should be easy to use, read,
write, it does not have to be all embracing. The Abstract on the other
hand does need to inform, do I want to read on or not?
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 :).
RSC I do not know which is why I latched on to it. Perhaps the IANA
registry makes sense without it at all but I would add all the
abbreviations to the Terminology section of this I-D
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?
< >
as per RFC2629. I assume that xml2rfc version whatever we are now up to
has not changed this; it is the same in HTML which is rather better
documented (Dummies books are an excellent source)
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
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
