[AVT] Re: draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt

[Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com>]

> >    Figure 3 shows the HC over MPLS protocol stack.  The PW 
> >    control octet is used to identify the packet types for
> >    certain HC schemes, including cTCP [RFC1144], IPHC
> >    [RFC2507], cRTP [RFC2508], and ECRTP [RFC3545], as shown
> >    in Figure 5:
> >
> >
> >                              0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
> >                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >                              |0 0 0 0|Pkt Typ|
> >                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >                        Figure 5 - PW Control Octet
> >
> >    where:
> >
> >    "Packet Type" encoding:
> >    0: Reserved
> >    1: FULL_HEADER
> >    2: COMPRESSED_TCP
> >    3: COMPRESSED_TCP_NODELTA
> >    4: COMPRESSED_NON_TCP
> >    5: COMPRESSED_RTP_8
> >    6: COMPRESSED_RTP_16
> >    7: COMPRESSED_UDP_8
> >    8: COMPRESSED_UDP_16
> >    9: CONTEXT_STATE
> >    10-15: MUST NOT BE ASSIGNED
> >
> > SB> re 10-15 - Why MNBA? Or do you mean reserved?
>
>
> The MNBA language suggested by Colin Perkins.  If the these values are
> to be assigned in the future, then we need to specify a registry, which
> we're not doing at the moment.
>  

Yes, but you could imagine that some new requirement might come along
say sctp or dccp, and the language here will cause some argument.

Setting up the registry, is not difficult, and no one is going to
argue against Expert Review as the allocation policy in this case :)

> > 7. IANA Considerations
> >
> >    As discussed in Section 4.1, new PW type values are assigned in
> >    [IANA] for HC over MPLS LSP/PWs.  As discussed in Section 4.1,
> >    interface parameter sub-TLV type values are specified in 
> >    [IANA] for both the network control protocol for IPv4, IPCP
> >    [RFC1332] and the IPv6 NCP, IPV6CP [RFC2472].
> >
> > SB> You say that all IANA actions are described
> > SB> in IANA and there are no additional IANA actions. Just to
> > SB> make it clear for the IANA reviewer.
>
>
> We should actually clarify the second sentence to say that:
> "As discussed in Section 4.1, interface parameter sub-TLV type values
> *need to be* specified in [IANA] for both the network control protocol
> for IPv4, IPCP [RFC1332] and the IPv6 NCP, IPV6CP [RFC2472]."
>
> [IANA]
> http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-11.txt
> does not now specify sub-TLV type values for the network control
> protocol for IPv4, IPCP [RFC1332] and the IPv6 NCP, IPV6CP [RFC2472].
>
> Thanks,
> Regards,
> Jerry 

OK - I saw a bunch of your values in there, and did not notice that
you needed more. It's likely that there will be another spin of
IANA when we resolve the allocation policy, so you should give Luca
the list to put in next time he does an update.

- Stewart


>

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt