On 05 Mar 2015, at 13:48, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote:
> And thanks Meral for the review indeed > And thanks Bruno for the response with which I agree. as do i. thanks. jari > > 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
