[CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Sat, 02 August 2014 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EBB1ACCF3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 08:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5kGCXzY40Az6 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 08:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 15FFB1ACAD6 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 08:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13210 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2014 15:29:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) ( by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2014 15:29:45 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([]) by cmgw4 with id ZxVc1o00T2SSUrH01xVfi2; Sat, 02 Aug 2014 15:29:44 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=_HXXpbCTQvUA:10 a=-7KSP9iKhHMA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=dv1bTX3t6hd76Ec4OGUA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=gc0nekJAuzsA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=O7Di3wWjATvtl8McE8k0q0ad2Jngam+yh8iypU5YrNw=; b=IRIrBQS4pegNHWSJgoWIRUkip5q7KE7aB0l0fzQwNSgnGDhJ/A7d7++bfZw+gCzfOuq0oDbggxEQh8az4okcCwWJYH4YYkTRrL+j81h5MOgZIS3L+H2wHa8hPLGSNgs0;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([]:39450 helo=[]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1XDbFa-0005Nc-1c; Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:29:38 -0600
Message-ID: <53DD040A.6000809@labn.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 11:30:18 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/nLRApLSPEhlv-RxW_V0djaJ21nk
Subject: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 15:29:52 -0000

All, (WG, Authors, Young, Giovanni),
	It looks like an unintended encoding change made it into -08 of the
draft, or there remains some confusion in the intended encoding.  The
topic traces back to a discussion in March, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15894.html.  To
move forward, I'd like to ensure that the authors and any other
interested party, i.e., existing and future implementors, are on the
same page.

I'd like to focus on the intent and the what document should says as
opposed to how we got here, i.e., past confusion.  We need to ensure
that the draft accurately documents the Authors/WG intent.  I am not
trying to propose any technical changes at this very late date.

The area of the document in question is sections 4.2-4.4 and relates to
how the so called sub-TLVs are encoded and processed.  The key text in
question, from rev -07 is:
   To target a specific node, this section defines a WSON_Processing
   object as part of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and follows procedures
   defined in [RSVP-RO].

Looking back on the -07 and the March mail thread, the "sub-TLVs"
defined in Section 4.3 and 4.4 should be carried as Attribute TLVs in
Subobjects. Also that there actually is no WSON_Processing object
carried on the wire.

Authors, Young, Giovanni:

    Please confirm if this is correct.  If not, please clarify what was
    intended in the -07 rev of the document.

Assuming it is correct I think it remains unclear what it means for a
to "follows procedures defined in [RSVP-RO]."

Authors, Young, Giovanni:

   Can you clarify what specific procedures defined in [RSVP-RO] are
   to be applied to the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects?

I think it should be possible to align the draft text fairly easily once
the intent is clear, and I'm happy/plan to propose specific text.