Subject: Re: [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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

At 3/13/2008 09:10 AM -0400, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

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: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:24:36 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

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?

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

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

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.

Regards,
Jukka

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

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

---

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

Hi Jukka,

>  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

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

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

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

> subobjects out to save bytes.

Agreed, and that is our intention.

Does that work for you?

Adrian

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:18:34 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

Sounds very good to me. 

Sorry that I missed that "MAY" for the suboptions. :)

Cheers,
Jukka

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Adrian Farrel wrote:

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