RE: [AVT] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt

["Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <gash at att.com>]

Colin,

Thanks for your comments.  Please see responses below.

Jerry 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp at csperkins.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:13 PM
> To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
> Cc: IETF AVT WG
> Subject: Re: [AVT] RE: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt 
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> On 27 Sep 2005, at 21:39, Ash, Gerald R ((Jerry)), ALABS wrote:
> > Please review and comment on the updated draft "Protocol 
> > Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS"
> >
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protoco
l-01.txt).
> >
> > The updates are based primarily on comments from Stewart Bryant, see
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05722.html
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05721.html
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05723.html
> >
> > The main changes include the following:
> >
> > 1. Section 4.1: Noted the need for IANA to allocate two Pseudowire
> > Interface Parameter Sub-TLV type values, one for IPCP and the
> > other for IPV6TP.

> You might want to talk to IANA now, and get provisional values  
> assigned to include into the document?

Yes, this would be a good idea if the registries existed.  The PWE3 IANA
draft
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-12.txt
is currently in IETF last call, so it can't be too far into the future.
The chairs of PWE3 (Stewart Bryant and Danny McPherson) have been
requested to add this request (two PW Interface Parameter Sub-TLV type
values for this draft) to their "temporary" assignments list and pass
them to IANA once the registries are established.

> > 2. Section 4.1: Clarified the encoding of the header compression
> > setup/parameter-negotiation TLVs identified in RFC 3251 and 
> > RFC 3544.
> > 3. Section 4.2: Noted the need for IANA to establish a Registry to
> > assign PW Control Octet values 10-15.
> > 4. Section 7: Text clarified to conform with RFC 2434 requirements
> > and specified the need for the two new interface parameter 
> > sub-TLVs.  Also specified the need for a Registry for PW Control
> > Octet values 10-15.

> I think the registry for PW Control Octet values 10-15 needs more  
> detail. Specifying the registry and allocation policy is a 
> start, but the draft must also define the information that should
> be provided when registering a new value (e.g. if you want new
> registrations to include a name for the Packet Type and a reference
> to the specification of that type, then this draft must state that).

Right, name and reference would be good to add (those would be necessary
for the expert review, anyway).  We'll add these to the next revision of
the draft.

> > Once again, please review and comment on the updated draft.

> An editorial issue: the RFC Editor will push back on drafts 
> with more than five authors (http://www.rfc-editor.org/ 
> policy.html#policy.authlist). You might wish to list a single editor  
> on the front page, with a contributors section later, to avoid delay  
> during the RFC approval stage.

OK, we'll fix in the next revision of the draft.

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