Subject: Re: [mpls] [Tsvwg] WG last call for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-03

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:10:05 -0400

Hi,

This WG last call has now timed out. However, as there has not been a 
single comment it will continue until we actually get at least 3 
reviewers stating that they have read it and find it ready to progress.

Cheers

Magnus

Magnus Westerlund skrev:
> This announces a WG last call for "User-Defined Errors for RSVP" to be 
> published as proposed standard. Please provide any comments by March 7. 
> (Yes, you get an extra week due to the just before the meeting time of 
> this last call).
> 
> CCAMP and MPLS WG participants, please provide your comments to TSVWG.
> 
> You can find the draft here:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-03.txt 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
> Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
> S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:11:36 -0400

I just reviewed this draft and agree that it's ready to progress (I wrote an RFC creating an RVSP object with a new class number myself a few years back, so I've had a little bit of experience here).

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:44:16 +0200

Hi,

Version 04 is now available. I am still waiting for at least one more 
review before requesting publication.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-04.txt

Cheers

Magnus

Magnus Westerlund skrev:
>> published as proposed standard. Please provide any comments by March 
>> 7. (Yes, you get an extra week due to the just before the meeting time 
>> of this last call).
>>

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:47:30 +0100

Hi Jukka,

> I have read the draft, and think it is a reasonable proposal, and
> presented well. I have just a few minor comments/clarification requests:
>
> - What is exactly meant by "it is RECOMMENDED that organizations use a
>  published scheme for this string to promote consistent decoding."? Could
>  you add an example, perhaps?

Ah. Probably over-enthusiastic text created when we added the Error 
Description string before this became a WG I-D.

What we meant was that it might be helpful to a device that is going to a 
user that is going to read this string if they knew that a string coming 
from a device made by vendor X should be interpreted in a particular way. 
For example, date stamp, IP address, error string.

However, looking at this again, I would be happy to strike this text.

> - Is it possible to not include the Error Description? If so, this could
>  be said explicitly.

Yes, the length can be set to zero, in which case there are no bytes of 
description string.

I can clarify this.

> - Is it possible to not include User-defined subobjects? If so, this could
>  be said explicitly.

We already have:
        User-defined subobjects MAY be included.

I think that is sufficiently explicit that it is possible to not include 
them.

> These latter two comments are about making the user error propagation a
> bit simpler, e.g., one could primarily use the extended number space to
> define new error values, but leave in some cases the description and
> subobjects out to save bytes.

Agreed, and that is our intention.

Does that work for you?

Adrian