I worry about the allocation of sub-TLVs in this I-D. It calls for "The following Sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two additions, are made for two TLV Types in the aforementioned sub- registry: TLV Type 1 for "Target FEC Stack", and TLV Type 21 for "Reply Path"." and it is the Type 21 that worries me. IANA has, for Type 21, Reply Path (TEMPORARY - expires 2012-01-20) [draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] and I am unclear what the rules are about updates to expired, TEMPORARY, allocations. I worry too that [draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] while confirming the reservation of Type 21 takes a different tack for sub-TLVs, namely " According to the guidelines defined in [RFC5226], the sub-TLV range of Reply Path TLV are partitioned as following: 0-31743 - Reserved, and MUST NOT be allocated." so quite what this I-D will do to that I-D worries me. And I worry yet more that other I-Ds, such as draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-00 are heading down the track with further updates in this area of the MPLS namespace (except that this particular one seems to have abandoned sub-TLVs). Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <mpls@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:31 PM > > The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG > (mpls) to consider the following document: > - 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs' > <draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03.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 > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-11-09. 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 > > Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping > and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate > data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs. > The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified > for IPv6 address usage. > > This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so > they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >