Hello Adrian, WG- I propose this: Malformed TLV: reject the message and vigorously report it Unknown TLV type: report the TLV, ignore the TLV and process the rest of the message I'm open to other opinions, though. eric On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > I have one issue I want to bring up as a last call comment. I discussed it > briefly with Eric and we agreed it is something that needs wider discussion than > just a late editorial change. > > Currently 6378 does not describe the format of PSC TLVs and > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu introduces one without defining the format tightly. > Therefore, this document contains a simple statement of the fields and meanings > in a TLV. > > However, 6378 also does not state how to handle: > - a malformed TLV > - an unknown TLV type > > We need to add some simple text to cover this. > > Options for each of the above are: > - ignore the TLV but process the message > - report the TLV but ignore the TLV and process the message > - ignore the message > - report the message but ignore it > - reject the message > > Thanks, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG >> Sent: 26 March 2014 19:57 >> To: IETF-Announce >> Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-03.txt> (Updates to > MPLS >> Transport Profile Linear Protection) to Proposed Standard >> >> >> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG >> (mpls) to consider the following document: >> - 'Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection' >> <draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-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 2014-04-09. 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 >> >> This document contains four updates to the Protection State >> Coordination (PSC) logic defined in RFC6378, "MPLS Transport Profile >> (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection" . Two of the updates correct existing >> behavior. The third clarifies a behavior which was not explained in >> the RFC, and the fourth adds rules around handling capabilities >> mismatches. >> >> >> The file can be obtained via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates/ballot/ >> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls