Jari, Meral,
Eric had changed of email address.
I have forwarded him the review when it came out.
He took note but said he would submit the updated draft few weeks after
due to the pre-IETF submission cut-off.
I guess it should come out soon.
However, I am not sure about the change, but I'll let Eric comment on
this also.
The draft defines ranges:
0x01-0x3f: Generic/PIM Range
0x41-0x7f: mLDP Range
0x80-0xff: reserved
The fact that 0x41 and 0x42 are reserved is not a reason to shrink the
range. The assigned code points are such that the low order six bits are
the same in the two ranges so for consistency reason it make sense to
have ranges of equal length. In fact the draft says:
In general, whenever an assignment is requested from this registry,
two codepoints should be requested at the same time: one from the
Generic/PIM range and one from the mLDP range. The two codepoints
should have the same low-order 5 bits. If one of the two codepoints
is not actually needed, it should be registered anyway, and marked as
"reserved".
And the draft for example assigns 0x01 to Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route. So,
0x41 is also assigned to "Reserved" and so should be part of the mLDP Range.
By the way, Eric, I have spotted two typos.
You say
In general, whenever an assignment is requested from this registry,
two codepoints should be requested at the same time: one from the
Generic/PIM range and one from the mLDP range. The two codepoints
should have the same low-order 5 bits. If one of the two codepoints
is not actually needed, it should be registered anyway, and marked as
"reserved".
And
IANA has been requested to allocate codepoints for these
three route types such that (a) the high order two bits have the
value 0x01, and (b) the low order bit six bits have the same value as
the codepoints for the corresponding route types from [MVPN-BGP].
First paragraph talks about same low-order 5 bits while the latter one
about 6 bits, and on top of that there is and extra "bit" in the sentence.
-m
Le 25/11/2014 16:29, Jari Arkko a écrit :
Is there a response to this? It seems important that the ranges are correct.
Jari
On 24 Nov 2014, at 09:21, Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com>
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-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-07
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2014-11-24
IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-27
IESG Telechat date: 2014-11-25
Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have
some comments .
Minor issue:
->
page [Page 8]:
"
- Range 0x41-0x7f: mLDP Range. Values are assigned from this range
when the NLRI format associated with the route type presupposes
that mLDP is the C-multicast control protocol.
"
Should it be should it be Range 0x43-0x7f ? since 0x40-0x42 is Reserved.
Nits:
->
Please see LC message as well:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10805.html
Best Regards,
Meral
---
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson
Research
www.ericsson.com
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
