Tom, On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:05 PM, t.p. <[email protected]> wrote:
> I worry about the allocation of sub-TLVs in this I-D. > Thanks for the comments. I share worries about keeping synchronicity between sub-registries in this fashion. > 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. > Right -- the allocations under Type 1 are straightforward. But the allocations under Type 21 seem to be standing over quicksand. > 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. > Perhaps the best approach is to decouple. Have all Type 21 allocations under draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping and have that point to the RFC from draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping if needed (and it can take a snapshot of the sub-registry when it will be stable.) Thanks, -- Carlos. > 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" <[email protected]> > To: "IETF-Announce" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > 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 >> [email protected] mailing lists by 2012-11-09. Exceptionally, comments may > be >> sent to [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >> > >
