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

["McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann at motorola.com>]

Hi, Carlos,

Thanks, your explanation satisfies my concern.

-Pete


Carlos Pignataro wrote:
> 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