Subject: [mpls] Working group last call completed: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:38:38 +0100

Authors and working group,

The last call period for this draft has ended.

There was feedback from three people on-list all of whom had comments and
proposals to improve the document.

The authors should address these reviews and produce a new version of the
draft at their convenience.

In the meantime, three comments of support (and none of objection) does not
seem to me like consensus to publish (although it is also not consensus to
not publish). While this is a mainly a process document, and it is clear
that the WG chairs/secretary support the work (as co-authors), maybe the WG
could express something a little more than complete disinterest.

What about all of you OAM experts? What about the people with code for LSP
Ping?

Please continue sending opinions on the work while the authors are making
the new revision.

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 24 September 2020 17:32
To: 'mpls' <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call :
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04

Hi MPLS WG,

As previously noted, I'm the shepherd for this document and I'm running the
working group last call as agreed by the chairs.

This email starts a two-week last call on
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update/

Please send your opinions to the mailing list before October 9th.

While yes/no opinions are not without value, it is far more helpful if you
can indicate whether you have read the latest version of the draft, and what
the reasons are for your opinions.

Of course, all of your review comments will be helpful in improving the
document.

Best,
Adrian

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

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:45:25 +0000

From: mpls <[email-masked]> on behalf of Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Sent: 09 October 2020 09:38

<tp>

Adrian

If I have understood the document, then it makes no change to LSP Ping protocol in any way.  It amends the terminology in places to bring it in line with other WG and changes the ranges available for future allocations with IANA but makes no change to existing allocations or the protocol so I would expect most OAM experts and LSP Ping coders say that it is of no interest and no concern and perhaps not worth an e-mail to say so:-)

I did not comment in detail on the unfamiliar English in the I-D and will await the new version before doing so; I would not be surprised if there are  substantial number of such issues in the new version i.e we could need a few more rounds.

Tom Petch

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 24 September 2020 17:32
To: 'mpls' <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call :

Hi MPLS WG,

Best,
Adrian

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:41:41 +0000

From: mpls <[email-masked]> on behalf of tom petch <[email-masked]>
Sent: 09 October 2020 10:45

<tp>

Adrian

<tp2>
I was too pessimistic - the English in this version looks good.

Tom Petch

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 24 September 2020 17:32
To: 'mpls' <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call :

Hi MPLS WG,

Best,
Adrian