Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:44:07 +0200

Working Groups,

PWE3 working group,

This is to start a two week working group last call on an MPLS
document, but since it will be of interest to the PWE3 group also
the chairs agreed to copy it to the PWE3 mailing list as well.
Please keep the discussion on the mpls working group mailing list.

MPLS working group,

this is to start a two week Working Group last call on
draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-01.

Please send your comments to the mpls working group
mailing list ([email-masked]).

Please send both technical comments, and if you are happy
with the document as is also indications of support.

There are no IPR claims against this draft.

The co-authors have earlier stated that they are not aware
of any IPRs applicable to this draft.

If anyone else in the working group are aware of IPRs claims against
this draft, the time to disclose that is now.

This working group last call will end on June 27, 2013.

/Loa
for the wg co-chairs

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:25:37 +0200

Folks (chair hat off),

I was just about to close the wg last call, but remembered that
I've one nitty type of comment.

The draft is about retiring the possibility to have TLVs in the
GACh header, that is fine and I support that.

However TLVs might be carried in the GACh messages, the disticnction
is not entirely clear in the draft, can the authors please make
this clear.

/Loa

--

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:29:20 +0200

Working Group,

this working group last call, very few comments, can the authors
please make the updates needed; and tell the the wg and wg chairs
that the draft is ready to be sent to the IESG with a request for
publication.

Testing the water:

We can't see that an implementation poll on this draft is necessary.
Anyone that think we need to do that?

/Loa
for the wg chairs

--

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:25:21 +0100

> is not entirely clear in the draft, can the authors please make

Happily.

The current version defines "ACH TLV" as "TLV constructs that can be carried in
messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between the fixed header fields
and the G-ACh message."

Thus, retiring ACH TLVs, obviously means only removing this concept and not any
other TLV-related concept.

I would propose to change the last sentence of Section 1 as follows:

OLD
   This document states that ACH TLVs as specified in RFC 5586 are not
   useful and might be harmful.  It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the
   ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in
   Section 4 of this document.
NEW
   This document states that ACH TLVs as specified in RFC 5586 are not
   useful and might be harmful.  It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the
   ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in
   Section 4 of this document.  This document makes no comment about the
   use of TLVs in other places.  In particular, proposals to use TLVs
   within ACH messages, or as an appendage to ACH messages are not in
   scope of this document.
END

Does that work?

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:31:54 +0100

> that the draft is ready to be sent to the IESG with a request for

Working on this.
I see comments from Loa (separate response sent).
I believe all other comments came in before WG last call (e.g. review team
comments) and were addressed. If anyone disagrees, please shout.

> Anyone that think we need to do that?

That's amusing. I can confirm I have 237 implementations of not using the ACH
TLV  :-)
They do not all interoperate! In particular, I am having trouble to get my
refrigerator to television with my cat (people who know me well will understand
why this is).

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:51:01 +0200

Adrian,

Yes this works for me.

/Loa

--