Folks,
When I sent the question I intended to send it to the authors only,
but only change the "name" of the receiver (removed .all) and let the
.all stay in the actual mail address, so we have been spreading this a
bit wider than intended. So I put all the initial mail addresses back.
However, I agree with Bruno's responses. The difference between "not
assigned" and "reserved" is a Bruno put it.
/Loa
On 2015-03-05 17:55, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Loa, all,
Please see inline [Bruno] the proposed resolution
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 8:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-
02
Folks,
Did we respond to the Gen ART review?
[Bruno] Not yet.
/Loa
On 2015-03-05 03:03, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-
ART, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2015-03-04
IETF LC End Date: 2015-03-02?
IESG Telechat date: 2015-03-05
Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I
have some comments.
Minor issues:
-[Page 3], Section 2.1, Table "Registry Name: DS Flags.". Is there a reason bits
5-0 are listed as "Unassigned" and not "Reserved (MBZ)" ?, with Reference
being RFC4379 Section 3.3.
[Bruno] Indeed RFC4379 marks these flags as "Reserved".
However, my understanding is that in an IANA registry, "reserved" means that the IANA
can't use it. While "Unassigned" means that the IANA is free to pick a value and assign.
I think we do mean "Unassigned" as we want the IANA to be able to make
assignment. (otherwise, there is no point in making a IANA registry)
-[Page 4], Section 2.3, Table "Registry Name: Pad Type.". RFC4379 did not
reserve value 0. I could be wrong please double check.
[Bruno] Indeed, RFC4379 does not talk about value 0. Probably an oversight.
IMHO it's better for this document to document value 0 (probably required by IANA). IMO
making 0 "reserved" is the safest option.
At least the WG did not object/comment.
Hower the document indicates "0 Reserved
RFC4379" and this is not strictly true that RFC 4379 is the reference for this value
0.
Hence I would propose
OLD: 0 Reserved RFC4379
New: 0 Reserved This document.
-[Page 5], Section 2.4, Table "Registry Name: Interface and Label Stack
Address Type.". Same as above, RFC4379 did not reserve value 0.
[Bruno] idem
Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 2], Section 2.1, please put in parenthesis (DSMAP) and (DDMAP) right
after when the terms are spelled out. The acronyms are use later on.
[Bruno] Yes. Thank you. Done in my local copy
Best Regards,
Meral
---
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson
Research
www.ericsson.com
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
