And thanks Meral for the review And thanks Bruno for the response with which I agree.
Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 05 March 2015 11:09 > To: [email protected]; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping- > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02 > > 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
