Subject: [L2tpext] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04

From: "McCann Peter-A001034" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:57:33 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. 

Document: draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04
Reviewer: Pete McCann
Review Date: 15 June 2009
IETF LC End Date: 16 June 2009
IESG Telechat date: unknown 

Summary: Basically ready, one minor question

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

Section 2:
   setting of in the
Did you mean:
   setting of the N bit in the
?

In deprecating this N bit, will there be compatibility problems if an
implementation sends ICRQ, ICRP, OCRQ, or OCRP with the N bit clear?
Is it possible that older implementations would treat this as an invalid
message?

Nits/editorial comments: none

---

From: Carlos Pignataro <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:15:25 -0400

Hello Pete,

Many thanks for your review. Please see inline.

>    setting of the N bit in the

Yes, thanks; fixed.

> Is it possible that older implementations would treat this as an invalid

There shouldn't be; as long as an implementation includes the Circuit
Status AVP (because it is a "MUST be present" AVP for those four
messages), it would not be invalid because of the value of the N bit
field.  Note that from its definition in S5.4.5 of RFC3931 at
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3931#section-5.4.5>, it says:

      Otherwise, the New bit SHOULD still be set the first time the L2TP
      session is established after provisioning.

so there is potential room for dealing with not setting it; similar
language exists on the other RFCs being updated ("the New bit indicates
..." or "the New bit SHOULD be set ..."), so there would not be
compatibility problems.

> Nits/editorial comments: none

Hopefully this reply clarifies, thanks again for your review !

-- Carlos.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> L2tpext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>

---

From: "McCann Peter-A001034" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:19:11 -0400

Hi, Carlos,

Thanks, your explanation satisfies my concern.

-Pete

Carlos Pignataro wrote:
>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
>> comments you may receive. 
>> 
>> Is it possible that older implementations would treat this as an
>> invalid message?
> 
>       Otherwise, the New bit SHOULD still be set the first time the
>       L2TP session is established after provisioning.
> 
> language exists on the other RFCs being updated ("the New bit
> indicates ..." or "the New bit SHOULD be set ..."), so there would
> not be compatibility problems.   
> 
>>