Hi, I have made this comment before, I just want to make sure it is not lost. This draft is proposing a way to specify the length of sub-TLVs that is inconsistent with RFC 4379. I believe it would be better to align this with 4379 as the draft is updating it and I see no technical reason why this should be done differently from 4379. Best, Rolf NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > The IESG > Sent: Donnerstag, 11. August 2011 15:46 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt> > (MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing) to > Proposed Standard > > > The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching > WG > (mpls) to consider the following document: > - 'MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing' > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt> as a 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 > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-08-25. Exceptionally, comments may > be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > Label Switched Path Ping (LSP-Ping) is an existing and widely > deployed Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism > for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths > (LSPs). This document describes extensions to LSP-Ping so that LSP- > Ping can be used for On-demand Connectivity Verification of MPLS > Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) LSPs and Pseudowires. This document > also > clarifies procedures to be used for processing the related OAM > packets. Further, it describes procedures for using LSP-Ping to > perform Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing functions in > MPLS-TP networks. Finally this document updates RFC 4379 by adding > a > new address type and requesting an IANA registry. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf