[CCAMP] Question about partial SRLG collection flags

Oscar González de Dios <ogondio@tid.es> Thu, 04 July 2013 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ogondio@tid.es>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B6C21F9F7C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.298
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1JYNJf3-ULeQ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B9321F9F7E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet []) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0MPE00B0INEHS3@tid.hi.inet> for ccamp@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:23:05 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet []) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id B5.52.02911.9FE35D15; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:23:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet []) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0MPE00B0CNEHS3@tid.hi.inet> for ccamp@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:23:05 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([]) by EX10-HTCAS8-MAD.hi.inet ([fe80::41c8:e965:8a6:de67%11]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:23:04 +0200
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:23:04 +0000
From: Oscar González de Dios <ogondio@tid.es>
X-Originating-IP: []
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Message-id: <7CFF94B047D8864CB6268315034E35DE2F5F34CD@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_JCEG7Msr25Aymxygss88QA)"
Content-language: es-ES
Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US
Thread-topic: Question about partial SRLG collection flags
Thread-index: AQHOeJgWX8WHlvXGlEewi62HEDVJAw==
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f118e000000b5f-58-51d53ef99dd8
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqPvT7mqgwesVJhZP5txgcWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxrbV21gKphpXHH8zk7WB8blWFyMnh4SAiUTzhl9sELaYxIV7 64FsLg4hge2MEtef9bNDOD8ZJQ4/mM0CUiUksIFR4s+0cBCbRUBV4lvvUbBuNgEHiXWLesFs YQFTiZW3DjFCTFWQ+HPuMViviICUxM19t4CGcnDwCnhLHLmaChLmFRCU+DH5HgtImFkgV2Lm KbApzALiEnN+TWQFsRkFZCVWnj/NCDHFSuLTildQtp7Ewm8zwOpFgey2Y2fYIbYKSCzZc54Z whaVePn4H+sERpFZSLbNQtg2C8k2CFtP4sbUKVBxbYllC18zQ9i6EjP+HWKBsM0kWmfOQFGz gJFjFaNYcVJRZnpGSW5iZk66gZFeRqZeZl5qySZGSGRl7mBcvlPlEKMAB6MSD6+E1ZVAIdbE suLK3EOMEhzMSiK8ThxXA4V4UxIrq1KL8uOLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwLtGfKR7OnVyusekNf5t1 nGvBvOv//hz+a/iq3lhDrm+GzGcRSf5I11gjtogpLnW1/JdF+wOKFebbH867d/3LplPZ3bNC /1g6zlBtFn3sNL+2smdiwe+gm8IbvC97vWnXWjSL65bbqjm+D/gbjm245uOsk7yDWZVfaKXl 7bAbGeHsv17zfbyjxFKckWioxVxUnAgAxFXOnooCAAA=
Subject: [CCAMP] Question about partial SRLG collection flags
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:23:12 -0000

Dear CCAMP WG chairs and CCAMPrs,

In the last IETF meeting we presented  RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information ( draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02). This draft is about collecting SRLG information in the RRO. We included a couple of flags in the new SRLG sub-object, one to indicate if the SRLG-list contained in the RRO sub-object has been edited in some way by a node during signaling in accordance with that node's policy ,and another one to indicate if the hat the SRLG-list contained in this RRO sub-object is known to be incomplete.

       After presenting , Lou mentioned that he partial SRLG-list flags needs to be separated into an individual draft if it is a generic function. We have been discussing this point and have some doubts that we would like to share with the WG. First, the edited flag/partial flag could potentially apply to any collected sub-object, and thus can be considered generic. There are at least two drafts now (the SRLG collection and the TE metric recording) where this functionality is useful. However, if we want to make the flags generic,  there are several issues: the RRO subjects are TLVs, and each subobject is  defined independently. Thus, there is no common RRO sub object header where the generic flags could fit. Another potential problem is that all RRO TLVs defined so far have an 8-bit flags field; if we want to go for something consistent, this will probably have to expand at some point. In addition, there isn't a consistent place for the flags to go (e.g. the IPv4/6 address objects put them at the end of the TLV, whereas the others have them towards the beginning.

      We would like to know your opinion on the matter, so we can take the decision of keeping the flags in the SRLG collection draft, and that if other drafts use the same flags they define them again for their RRO sub objects, or going for a draft to define this flags, but here we have the mentioned doubts on the approach.

Best Regards,

Oscar on behalf of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect authors.


Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: