Subject: [mpls] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:43:30 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- 3.2: The description of the destination address offset isn't
clear to me. If this is some common thing in MPLS though, that's
fine. If not, maybe it'd be worth being clearer here.
(It does become clear later though, so this is a nit.)

---

From: Lizhong Jin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:57:19 +0800

Hi Stephen,
See inline below. Thanks.

Lizhong

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> [Lizhong] I read several times, and try to make it more clear as below:

Destination Address Offset: an offset (octets) to indicate the
      position of the Relayed Address Entry which is also the

      destination address of the Reply or Relayed Reply message.

      E.g., to point the first entry on the top of the Stack of

      Relayed Addresses will have offset of 0, and to point to

      the second entry will have offset of the length of the first entry.

---

From: "George Swallow (swallow)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:50:24 +0000

Lizhong, Stephen,

Perhaps less in more!

  Destination Address Offset: the offset in octets from the top-of-stack
  to the destination address entry.

Lizhong –

There are several places in the draft where the term "destination address” should be "destination address entry”

It would also be good to add a column to the table on page 6 indicating the size of each entry

Null              4

IPv4      8

IPv6    20

George

From: Lizhong Jin <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 11:57 AM
To: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, mpls-chairs <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Stephen,

Lizhong

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: No Objection

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:19:37 +0100

>   to the destination address entry.

That might be better yes. Maybe with a forward pointer to the 4.x
sections that clarify it.

S