Updating the MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters IANA Registry
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-11

[[ comments ]]

[ section 1.2.1 ]

* I find it slightly odd that this section even exists.

  RFC 8126 section 1 seems to provide a definition for "namespace" and
  for "assignment"/"registration".  My reading of 8126s1's definition
  of namespace doesn't seem to quite match this document's use of namespace
  (seems more like the definition of registry without the existence of
  a definition for "sub-registry"), but maybe I haven't spent enough time
  thinking about it.

  If IANA review is fine with this text here, I've no objection.


[[ nits ]]

[ section 1 ]

* "there hav been" -> "there have been"

None of the URLs for [IANA-Sub-*] in the References section work.  Better check 'em.

Thank you for writing this clarifying document.

** Section 3.1.  Per “All TLVs and sub-TLVs in the range 32768-65535 may be silently dropped, stepped over or an error message sent …”, is “stepped over” the same as ignored?

** Section 3.1.1.
-- “If the unrecognized TLV and sub-TLV is from … a Return Code of 2 … must be …”, should a normative MUST be used here?”

-- “If the unrecognized TLV and sub-TLV is from … the TLVs may be …”, should a normative MAY be used here?

Thank you for the work put into this document. 

Thanks to Adrian Farrel for writing about the WG consensus.

Using "namespace" for code points in a registry sounded weird to me; but it appears that it is used indeed by MPLS even for numbers.

Regards,

-éric

§6 asks IANA to add a header mentioning the designated experts for several registries.  Some of those registries already mention the same 2 experts, but that is not the case for all.  I have 2 points around this:

(1) It doesn't seem like a good idea to include the experts' names in the document.  They will at some point change, and updating an RFC is too heavyweight for that change.

(2) I have no objections to naming the 2 experts as DEs for all registries, but that action should be approved by the IESG (and not simply mentioned in the document).


In summary, the explicit text about the experts' names should be removed.  Instead, there should be a Management Item for the IESG to approve them for the remaining registries.

Thanks for getting things tidied up so I can resolve my Discuss points!

Thanks for addressing my discuss issue.

Regards,
Rob