draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-02.txt
	MPLS Working Group L. Andersson		MPLS Working Group L. Andersson
	Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting		Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting
	Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) M. Chen		Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) M. Chen
	Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Techologies		Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Techologies
	Expires: September 6, 2020 C. Pignataro		Expires: October 18, 2020 C. Pignataro
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	T. Saad		T. Saad
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	March 5, 2020		April 16, 2020
	Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters		Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters
	draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01		draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 that define IANA		This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 that both define IANA
	registries for MPLS LSP Ping. The updates are mostly for		registries for MPLS LSP Ping. It also updates the language that is
	clarification and to align this registry with recent developments..		used to define the procedures for responses are sent when an unkwon
			or errored code point is found. The updates are for clarification
			and to align this name space with recent developments.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 18, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes		2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes
	Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV		3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV
	registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub-		3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub-
	TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . 6		3.2.1. Common Changes to the TLV and sub-TLV Registries . . 5
	4. Text chages/updates to related RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Text Chages/Updates to Related RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.1. Text changes to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1. Text Changes to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.1.1. Comments to this changes to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . 8		4.2. Text Changes to RFC 8611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2. Text changes to RFC 8611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.2.1. Comments to this changes to RFC 8611 . . . . . . . . 9		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.1. Updates of Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6.1. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries 9		6.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . 9
	6.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . 10		6.3. IANA Assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.3. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . 11		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained among other things		When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained updates to the
	updates to the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched		"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
	Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" IANA name space [IANA-LSP-PING].		Ping Parameters" IANA name space [IANA-LSP-PING].
	RFC 8611 [RFC8611] updated the LSP Ping IANA registries to match RFC		RFC 8611 [RFC8611] updated the LSP Ping IANA registries to match RFC
	8029, but the registrations can be further clarified and their		8029. This document further clarifies the entries in those
	definitions more precise.		registries and makes the definitions more precise.
	This document updates RFC 8029 [[RFC8029] and RFC 8611 [RFC8611] by		This document updates RFC 8029 [[RFC8029] and RFC 8611 [RFC8611] by
	updating two groups of registries.		updating two groups of registries as follows:
	First the registries for Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply Modes		First the registries for Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply Modes
	[IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC]. The changes to these		[IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC] are updated. The changes to
	registries are minor.		these registries are minor.
	Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries.		Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
	o TLVs [IANA-TLV-reg]		o TLVs [IANA-TLV-reg]
	o Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]		o Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]
	o Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 [IANA-Sub-6]		o Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 [IANA-Sub-6]
	o Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 [IANA-Sub-11]		o Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 [IANA-Sub-11]
	o Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 [IANA-Sub-20]		o Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 [IANA-Sub-20]
	o Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 [IANA-Sub-23]		o Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 [IANA-Sub-23]
	o Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 [IANA-Sub-27]		o Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 [IANA-Sub-27]
	The registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 9 [IANA-Sub-9] is not updated.		The registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 9 [IANA-Sub-9] is not updated.
			Third, some code points (TLVs and sub-TLVs) are "mandatory" and
			"optional". Contrary to how other RFCs use these words, indicating
			that it is mandatory or optional to include the code points in a
			message, RFC 8029 use the words to indicate that an acction might or
			might nt be nesesary. The words "mandatory and "optional" are
			dropped and the text is changed to focus on what should be doen.
	1.1. Requirement Language		1.1. Requirement Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries		2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries
	The following changes are made to the Message Types, Reply Modes and		The following changes are made to the Message Types, Reply Modes and
	Return Codes [IANA-MT] registries.		Return Codes [IANA-MT] registries.
	o a small set of code points (4 code points) for experimental use is		o In the listing of assignments the term "Vendor Private Use" is
	added, actually they are take from the range for "Private Use".		changed to "Private Use"
			o a small set of code points (4 code points) for Experimental Use is
			added by reducing the range for "Private Use".
	o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to		o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
	"RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed		"RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed
	o In the listing of assignments the term "Vendor Private Use" is
	changed to "Private Use"
	o the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use"		o the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use"
	are added to the table of registration procedures		are added to the table of registration procedures
	o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration		o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration
	procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use"		procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use"
	o In the list that capture the assignment status, the fields that		o In the list that capture the assignment status, the fields that
	are reserved, i.e. 0, Private Use and Experimental Use are		are reserved, i.e. 0, Private Use and Experimental Use are
	clearly marked.		clearly marked.
	* In the Return Codes [IANA-RC] registry the code point "0"		* In the Return Codes [IANA-RC] registry the code point "0"
	already been assigned. This assignment is not changed and this		already been assigned. This assignment is not changed and this
	registry will not have the "0" value "Reserved".		registry will not have the "0" value "Reserved".
	The new Registration Procedures layout and the new assignments for		The new Registration Procedures layout and the new assignments for
	these registries will be found in Section 6.1.		these registries will be found in Section 6.1.
	3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries		3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries
	When a new LSP Ping sub-TLV registry were created by RFC 8611
	[RFC8611] this registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] was
	set up following the intentions of RFC 8029.
	The registry for "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" will serve as a model to
	change/update the rest of the TLV and sub-TLV registries in this name
	space.
	The registration procedures in the current registry for "Sub-TLVs for
	TLV Type 6" looks like this (2019-06-20). This will be used as a
	base-line and some additions/changes will be made as captured in the
	Appendixes:
	+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
	| Range | Registration | Note |
	| | Procedures | |
	+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
	| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for mandatory |
	| | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that |
	| | | require an error message if not |
	| | | recognized. |
	| 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for mandatory |
	| | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that |
	| | | require an error message if not |
	| | | recognized. |
	| 31744-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
	| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for optional TLVs |
	| | | that can be silently dropped if |
	| | | not recognized. |
	| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for optional TLVs |
	| | | that can be silently dropped if |
	| | | not recognized. |
	| 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
	+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
	Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures
	This document adds small ranges of code points for Experimental Use
	to this registry and to registries listed in Section 6.2.
	All registries will be changed to reflect the same model.
	3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries		3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries
	The following principles are valid for all the LSP Ping TLV and sub-		The following principles are valid for all the LSP Ping TLV and sub-
	TLV IANA registries		TLV IANA registries
	o all mandatory TLVs and sub-TLVs requires a response if the are not		o all TLVs and sub-TLVs with a typ in the the range 0-32767 require
	recognized		a response if they are not recognized
	o some optional TLVs and sub-TLVs requires a response if the are not
	recognized
	o some optional TLVs and sub-TLVs may be silently dropped if the are		o all TLVs and sub-TLVs in the range 32768-65535 may be silently
	not recognized		dropped if the are not recognized
	The range of each TLV and sub-TLV registry is divided into to blocks,		The range of each TLV and sub-TLV registry is divided into wto
	one with a range from 0 to 49161 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that require a		blocks, one with a range from 0 to 32767 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that
	response if not recognized. Another block in the range from 49161 to		require a response if not recognized. Another block in the range
	65535, this block is for TLVs and sub-TLVs that may be silently		from 32768 to 65535, this block is for TLVs and sub-TLVs that may be
	dropped if not recognized.		silently dropped if not recognized.
	Each of the blocks have code point spaces with the following		Each of the blocks has code point spaces with the following
	registration procedures:		registration procedures:
	o Standards Action		o Standards Action
	o RFC Required		o RFC Required
	o Experimental Use		o Experimental Use
	o Private Use		o Private Use
	The exact defintion of registration procedures for IANA registries		The exact defintion of registration procedures for IANA registries
	are found in [RFC8126]		are found in [RFC8126]
	3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub-TLVs		3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub-TLVs
	Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs for Expereimetal USe and Privagte Use		Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs for Expereimetal USe and Privagte Use
	are handled as any other unrecognised TLV or sub-TLV.		are handled as any other unrecognised TLV or sub-TLV.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 30 ¶
	range (64512-64515) or from the Private Use range (64515-65535)		range (64512-64515) or from the Private Use range (64515-65535)
	the TLVs SHOULD be silently ignored.		the TLVs SHOULD be silently ignored.
	IETF does not prescribe how recognized or unrecognized Experimental		IETF does not prescribe how recognized or unrecognized Experimental
	Use and Private Use TLVs and sub-TLVs are handled in experimental or		Use and Private Use TLVs and sub-TLVs are handled in experimental or
	private networks, that is up to the agency running the experiment or		private networks, that is up to the agency running the experiment or
	the private network. The statement above relates to how standard		the private network. The statement above relates to how standard
	compliant implementations will treat the unrecognized TLVs and sub-		compliant implementations will treat the unrecognized TLVs and sub-
	TLVs from these ranges.		TLVs from these ranges.
	3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries		3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries
	This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping Registry, in		This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping Registry.
	Section 6.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 the changes are detailed and		Section 6.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 set out how the new versions
	it is shown what the IANA registry version of the registration		of the IANA registries should look, together with the registration
	procedures and assignments would look like.		procedures.
	3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries		3.2.1. Common Changes to the TLV and sub-TLV Registries
	The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries.		The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
	o two small set of code points (2 times 4 code points) for		o the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use"
			are added to the table of registration procedures
			o two small sets of code points (2 times 4 code points) for
	experimental use is added, actually they are take from the range		experimental use is added, actually they are take from the range
	for "Private Use".		for "Private Use".
	o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to		o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
	"RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed		"RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed
	o In the listing of assignements the term "Vendor Private Use" is		o In the listing of assignements the term "Vendor Private Use" is
	changed to "Private Use"		changed to "Private Use"
	o In the listing of assignments the range for "Experimental Use" is		o In the listing of assignments the range for "Experimental Use" is
	added		added
	o the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use"
	are added to the table of registration procedures
	o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration		o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration
	procedures "Experimental Use" and "Private Use"		procedures "Experimental Use" and "Private Use"
	o In the list that capture assignment status, the fields that are		o In the list that capture assignment status, the fields that are
	reserved, i.e. 0, Experimental Use and Private Use are clearly		reserved, i.e. 0, Experimental Use and Private Use are clearly
	marked.		marked.
	The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments		The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments
	for these registries will be found in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.		for these registries will be found in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.
	4. Text chages/updates to related RFCs		4. Text Chages/Updates to Related RFCs
	Some referenced RFCs are using the concept "mandatory TLVs" and		Some referenced RFCs are using the concept "mandatory TLVs" and
	"mandatory sub-TLVs" to indicate that if a TLV or sub-TLV of the		"mandatory sub-TLVs" to indicate that if a TLV or sub-TLV of the
	range 0-16383 or 16384-31743 is present in a message but not		range 0-16383 or 16384-31743 is present in a message but not
	understood, error message need to be sent in response.		understood, error message need to be sent in response.
	Since other RFCs are using "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs"		Since other RFCs are using "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs"
	to indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs ths must be present in a message, we		to indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs that must be present in a message, we
	want to discontinue the use of "mandatory" to indicate TLVs and sub-		want to discontinue the use of "mandatory" to indicate TLVs and sub-
	TLVs that requires an error message in response if not understood.		TLVs that requires an error message in response if not understood.
	The changes to the RFCs below are intended to align with this		The changes to the RFCs below are intended to align with this
	practice.		practice.
	4.1. Text changes to RFC 8029		4.1. Text Changes to RFC 8029
	In section 3 RFC 8029 says:
	Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 0)
	are mandatory TLVs that MUST either be supported by an
	implementation or result in the Return Code of 2 ("One or more of
	the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the echo response.
	Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high-order		Mandatory and optional is used in this way on page 14 and 15 in
	bit equal to 1) are optional TLVs that SHOULD be ignored if the		Section 3 of RFC 8029.
	implementation does not understand or support them.
	This text is nows changed to:		The text in those two paragraphs are now changed to:
	TLV and sub-TLV Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order		TLV and sub-TLV Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order
	bit equal to 0) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that MUST either be		bit equal to 0) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that MUST either be
	supported by an implementation or result in the Return Code of 2		supported by an implementation or result in the Return Code of 2
	("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the		("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the
	echo response.		echo response.
	TLV and sub-TLV Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with		An implementation that does not understand or support a received
	the high-order bit equal to 1) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that SHOULD		TLV or sub-TLV with Type greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e.,
	be ignored if the implementation does not understand or support		with the high-order bit equal to 1) SHOULD ignore and step over
	them.		the TLV or sub-TLV, however an implementation MAY send an echo
			response with Return Code 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not
	4.1.1. Comments to this changes to RFC 8029		understood") as it would have doen if the high order bit had been
			clear.
	1. RFC 8029 is a Standard Tracks RFC. Ranges 0-16383 and
	32768-49161 are assigned by Standards Action. Ranges 31744-32767
	and 49162-64511 are assigned by RFC Required, as specified e.g.
	in Section 6.2 in this doucument.
	2. The text is change in two ways
	First, the ambigous use of "mandatory" and "optional" is		In Section 3.8 of RFC 8029 "mandatory" is used in the same way. The
	removed,		first two paragaraphs of this section ar now changed to read:
	Second, it is clarified that both un-supported or not		The following TLV is a TLV that MAY be included in an echo reply
	recognized TLVs and sub-TLVs will generate an error message in		to inform the sender of an echo request icluding TLVs or sub-TLVs
	the Echo Reply message.		Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high-order
			bit equal to 1) are iether nor supported by the implementation or
			parsed and found to be in error.
	3. The name of the TLV used in the Echo Reply message is "TLV not		The Value field contains the TLVs, including sub-TLVs, that were
	understood", however it applies equally to sub-TLVs. If a sub-		not understood, encoded as sub-TLVs.
	TLV is not understood or supported, the entire TLV that includes
	the sub-TLV is returned.
	4.2. Text changes to RFC 8611		4.2. Text Changes to RFC 8611
	RFC 8611 defines a sub-TLV registry - "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6". The		The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry is now updated to align with
	allocation policies for this registry is described in Section 3 of		changes defined in this document.
	this document. The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry is now updated
	to align with changes defined in this document.
	The registration procedurs for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry		The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6"
	will now be like this:		registry will now be like this:
	+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+		+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
	| Range | Registration | Note |		| Range | Registration | Note |
	| | Procedures | |		| | Procedures | |
	+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+		+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
	| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |		| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
	| | | require an error message if not |		| | | require an error message if not |
	| | | recognized. |		| | | recognized. |
	| 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |		| 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
	| | | require an error message if not |		| | | require an error message if not |
	skipping to change at page 9, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 5 ¶
	| | | can be silently dropped if not |		| | | can be silently dropped if not |
	| | | recognized. |		| | | recognized. |
	| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |		| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
	| | | can be silently dropped if not |		| | | can be silently dropped if not |
	| | | recognized. |		| | | recognized. |
	| 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |		| 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
	+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+		+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
	Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures		Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures
	4.2.1. Comments to this changes to RFC 8611
	While it is true that the same rules apply to sub-TLVs and TLVs when
	it comes tu return am error message if a TLV or sub-TLV is not
	recognized. In the case if the registry for "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6
	Registration Procedures" ir only includes sub-TLVs.
	The changes described in this section aligns RFC 8611 with the
	changes/updates described in the rest of this document.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	This document only updates IANA registries, not how the code-points		This document updates IANA registries, some terminology used to
	in the registries are used. This should not create any new threats.		define, and clarifies the terminology related to the code points in
			the registries. The document does not change how the code-points in
			the registries are used. This should not create any new threats.
			However, the updated terminology and the clarifications improve
			security because it makes it more likely that implementations will be
			consistent and harder to attack.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to update the LSP Ping name space as described in		IANA is requested to update the LSP Ping name space as described in
	this document and documented in the Appendixies.		this document.
	6.1. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries		6.1. Updates of Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries
	This section details the updated registration procedures for Message		This section details the updated registration procedures and
	Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries.		allocations for: Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes
			registries.
	+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+		+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
	| Range | Registration | Note |		| Range | Registration | Note |
	| | Procedures | |		| | Procedures | |
	+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+		+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
	| 0-191 | Standards Action | |		| 0-191 | Standards Action | |
	| 192-247 | RFC Required | |		| 192-247 | RFC Required | |
	| 248-251 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |		| 248-251 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |
	| 252-255 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |		| 252-255 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
	+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+		+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
	skipping to change at page 11, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 46 ¶
	| | | recognized. |		| | | recognized. |
	| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that can |		| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that can |
	| | | be silently dropped if not |		| | | be silently dropped if not |
	| | | recognized. |		| | | recognized. |
	| 64512-64515 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |		| 64512-64515 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |
	| 64515-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |		| 64515-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
	+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+		+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
	TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures		TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures
	6.3. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs		6.3. IANA Assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs
	The two tables in this section describes the updated IANA assignments		The two tables in this section describes the updated IANA assignments
	for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9		for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9
	([IANA-Sub-9] is not changed.		([IANA-Sub-9] is not changed.
	+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+		+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+
	| Type | TLV name | Reference | sub-TLV |		| Type | TLV name | Reference | sub-TLV |
	| | | | registry |		| | | | registry |
	+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+		+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+
	| 0 | Reserved | This document | |		| 0 | Reserved | This document | |
End of changes. 43 change blocks.
	165 lines changed or deleted		108 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/