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

[Carlos Pignataro <cpignata at cisco.com>]

Hello Pete,

Many thanks for your review. Please see inline.

On 6/15/2009 1:57 PM, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
> 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
> ?

Yes, thanks; fixed.

> 
> 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?

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
> L2tpext at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>