Subject: [mpls] [IANA #815506] Protocol Action: 'Proxy MPLS Echo Request' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05.txt)

From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:09:05 +0000

Dear Authors,

We have two questions about the assignments requested by this document:

1) Which range should be used for the TLV registrations? 

0-16383	Standards Action (This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional TLVs that require an error message if not recognized.)
16384-31743	Specification Required (Experimental RFC needed)
32768-49161	Standards Action (This range is for optional TLVs that can be silently dropped if not recognized.)
49162-64511	Specification Required (Experimental RFC needed)

2) Can you confirm that we should make the Message Types assignment from the Standards Action range (0-191) , rather than the Specification Required range (192-255)? 

Please see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters

thanks,

Amanda Baber
IANA Request Specialist
ICANN

---

From: "George Swallow (swallow)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 16:17:34 +0000

Amanda -

Please assign all four from the 0-16383 range.

Thanks,

George

On 4/3/15 6:09 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>0-16383	Standards Action (This range is for mandatory TLVs or for
>optional TLVs that require an error message if not recognized.)
>2) Can you confirm that we should make the Message Types assignment from
>the Standards Action range (0-191) , rather than the Specification
>Required range (192-255)?
>
>Please see

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 14:32:10 +0200

George,

That is fine for the TLVs, what about the message types?

/Loa

On 2015-04-07 18:17, George Swallow (swallow) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 

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

---

From: "George Swallow (swallow)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:31:12 +0000

The message type should be assigned from "standards action".

George

On 4/8/15 8:32 AM, "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> 32768-49161	Standards Action (This range is for optional TLVs that can
>>>be
>>> silently dropped if not recognized.)

---

From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:29:18 +0000

Dear Authors:

ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED 

We've completed the IANA Actions for the following RFC-to-be:

draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05

NOTE: The following have been converted to lower case: "could" in TBA-9; "marked" in the notes attached to the registration procedures for the Downstream Mapping and Next Hop registries.

QUESTION: The existing sub-TLV registries list notes for each registration range. The new sub-TLV registry for Proxy Echo Parameters doesn't, because I couldn't find a source for those notes in RFC 4379. 

Should those notes ("This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional TLVs that require an error message if not recognized," etc.) be included in this registry's registration procedures? If so, are these included or implied in RFC 4379? If there isn't a source for them in RFC 4379, they'll have to be spelled out in this document's IANA Considerations section. 

ACTION 1:

IANA has registered the following Message Types:

3	MPLS Proxy Ping Request	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
4	MPLS Proxy Ping Reply	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]

Please see

ACTION 2:

IANA has registered the following TLVs:

23	Proxy Echo Parameters	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	[http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#sub-tlv-23]
24	Reply-to Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No Sub-TLVs
25	Upstream Neighbor Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No Sub-TLVs
26	Downstream Neighbor Address	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	No Sub-TLVs

Please see

ACTION 3:

IANA has registered the following Return Codes:

16	Proxy Ping not authorized.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
17	Proxy Ping parameters need to be modified.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
18	MPLS Echo Request could not be sent.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
19	Replying router has FEC mapping for topmost FEC.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]

Please see

ACTION 4:

IANA has created the following registry:

Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23
Reference
[RFC4379][RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]

Range 	Registration Procedures 
0-16383	Standards Action
16384-31743	Specification Required
32768-49161	Standards Action
49162-64511	Specification Required

Sub-Type 	Sub-TLV Name 	Reference 	Comment 
0	Reserved	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	
1	Next Hop	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	
2-64511	Unassigned		
64512-65535	Reserved for Vendor or Private Use	[RFC4379]

Please see

ACTION 5:

IANA has made this document an additional reference for the Downstream Mapping Address Type Registry, added the note "Each time a code point is assigned from this registry, unless the  same registration is made in both registries, the corresponding Next  Hop Address Type Registry must be marked "Reserved" to the top of the registry, and added the following registrations:

6	Reserved		[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
7	Reserved		[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]

Please see

ACTION 6:

IANA has created the following registry:

Next Hop Address Type Registry
Registration Procedure(s): Standards Action
Reference: [RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
Note: Each time a code point is assigned from this registry, unless the 
same registration is made in both registries, the corresponding 
Downstream Address Mapping Registry must be marked "Reserved."

Type 	Type of Next Hop 	Address Length 	IF Length 	Reference 
0	Unassigned			
1	IPv4 Numbered	4	4	[RFC4379]
2	IPv4 Unnumbered	4	4	[RFC4379]
3	IPv6 Numbered	16	16	[RFC4379]
4	IPv6 Unnumbered	16	4	[RFC4379]
5	Reserved			[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
6	IPv4 Protocol Adj	4	0	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
7	IPv6 Protocol Adj	16	0	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
8-255	Unassigned

Please see

The updated list of Protocol Registries is available here:
 
http://www.iana.org/protocols

Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As soon as we receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor that this document's IANA Actions are complete. (If this document has a team of authors, one reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.)

We'll update the reference when the RFC Editor notifies us that they've assigned a number.

Thanks,

Amanda Baber
IANA Request Specialist
ICANN

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 09:55:09 +0200

Authors,

This looks right to me, but you at least one of the authors need
sign-off.

As for the question I think that the same notes as for the other
registers would be OK, i.e.:

0-16383 Standards Action This range is for mandatory TLVs or for 
optional TLVs that require an error message if not recognized.

16384-31743 Specification Required Experimental RFC needed

32768-49161 Standards Action This range is for optional TLVs that can be 
silently dropped if not recognized.

49162-64511 Specification Required Experimental RFC needed

/Loa

--

---

From: "George Swallow (swallow)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 19:32:00 +0000

Amanda -

These look fine to me.

Thanks!

George

On 4/8/15 7:29 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>NOTE: The following have been converted to lower case: "could" in TBA-9;
>"marked" in the notes attached to the registration procedures for the
>Downstream Mapping and Next Hop registries.
>
>QUESTION: The existing sub-TLV registries list notes for each
>registration range. The new sub-TLV registry for Proxy Echo Parameters
>doesn't, because I couldn't find a source for those notes in RFC 4379.
>
>Should those notes ("This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional
>TLVs that require an error message if not recognized," etc.) be included
>in this registry's registration procedures? If so, are these included or
>implied in RFC 4379? If there isn't a source for them in RFC 4379,
>they'll have to be spelled out in this document's IANA Considerations
>section. 
>
>ACTION 1:
>
>23	Proxy Echo 
>Parameters	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]	[http://www.iana.org/assignme
>nts/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#sub-tlv-23]
>17	Proxy Ping parameters need to be
>modified.	[RFC-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-05]
>IANA has made this document an additional reference for the Downstream
>Mapping Address Type Registry, added the note "Each time a code point is
>assigned from this registry, unless the  same registration is made in
>both registries, the corresponding Next  Hop Address Type Registry must
>be marked "Reserved" to the top of the registry, and added the following
>registrations:
>
>Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As soon as we
>receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor that this
>document's IANA Actions are complete. (If this document has a team of
>authors, one reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.)
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:37:31 +0200

George,

In my Shepherd response to the IANA mail, I responded to "QUESTION"
(below) I said it is correct to add the notes to the sub-TLV registry
for Proxy Echo Parameters as we have for the existing sub-TLV
registries.

Do you agree?

/Loa

--

---

From: "George Swallow (swallow)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:24:14 +0000

Yes.

---

From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:35:17 +0000

Hi,

This is complete, and I think I see where these notes came from in RFC 4379:

Section 3. Packet Format

   "Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 0) are
   mandatory TLVs that MUST either be supported by an implementation or
   result in the return code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not
   understood") being sent in the echo response.

   "Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit
   equal to 1) are optional TLVs that SHOULD be ignored if the
   implementation does not understand or support them."

I'm assuming that the first paragraph equates to "This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional TLVs that require an error message if not recognized."

Section 7. IANA Considerations

   "Values from "Specification Required" ranges MUST be registered with
   IANA.  The request MUST be made via an Experimental RFC that
   describes the format and procedures for using the code point; the
   actual assignment is made during the IANA actions for the RFC."

I'll tell the RFC Editor the actions are complete.

Thanks!

Amanda