IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 08 November 2013 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C48121E8087 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:19:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.695, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ePUkNcFLzXT2 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy17-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy17-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [74.220.201.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A6BF11E80EC for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 14568 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 2013 21:19:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy17-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2013 21:19:30 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=AxukgTkM2QqlIevJwKkuCESCHnxS5mZz0GA2Ykc2bD4=; b=Z+VotGNm7bYrO2c7Kqc65FAXRa0q13mViWa23nxA3qv7Iuh6cJycXIzHVx0nydFzznS7N3XIPVWCgRVQk0/FQmHG8RfQPnG4qfv2OoWBq4hKBpFhaMkKTKyfG6p9CBr+;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:42385 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1VetSk-0002Fo-Qj; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:19:30 -0700
Message-ID: <527D5562.8060100@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:19:30 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <CEA25E85.81FFE%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEA25E85.81FFE%zali@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:19:42 -0000

Zafar,
	Your document says 2, i.e., is incompatible with existing implementations.

Lou

On 11/08/2013 04:11 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> Hi Lou- 
> 
> You are right, the ctype is TBD, like I mentioned during the meeting that
> we are using different ctype.
> 
> We would like to take this opportunity to solicit comments from the WG on
> this draft. 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards Š Zafar
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>
> Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 6:17 PM
> To: zali <zali@cisco.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Comment on compatibility in draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps
> 
>> Zafar,
>> 	My comment in today's session was that you are redefining the format of
>> an existing object (by adding TLVs) this breaks compatibility.  You
>> stated that this wasn't the case.
>>
>> FWIW:
>>
>> Your document says:
>>
>>    0                   1                   2                   3
>>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>   |            Length             | Class-Num(37) |   C-Type(2)   |
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>   |S|P|N|O| Reserved  | LSP Flags |      Reserved     | Link Flags|
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>   |I|R|   Reserved    | Seg.Flags |           Reserved            |
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>   |                                                               |
>>   ~                           sub-TLVs                            ~
>>   |                                                               |
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>>
>> RFC4872 says
>>      0                   1                   2                   3
>>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |            Length             | Class-Num(37) | C-Type (2)    |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |S|P|N|O| Reserved  | LSP Flags |     Reserved      | Link Flags|
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |                           Reserved                            |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>> Perhaps you meant C-Type(TBD).  You should address compatibility
>> explicitly in any case.
>>
>> Lou
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email