Re: [Idr] Some comments about the flags in draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-11

"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ketant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339E0120273; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 07:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=jwKKOpAp; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=ZRKFtSUg
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gwEyu49cxnse; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 07:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE072120271; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 07:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=22034; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562163222; x=1563372822; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=aGBYkByOxK6a/hx4LMuHp2i3dvDWsbgq484jPlLncP8=; b=jwKKOpAp3r3Fk6dMHikHG/BgMyuW1qGneUyZzsTfSBFyxo5A6N7CRfGO mFvtOHw5Upk2+v66DqmZ3ElLrhNa5wuVzH+PsvE/iFUKgGDNrBkHkm8hw eeVGQvC52H6wJKbLFoAjD0g7SP1SFxXOOkRvq82QJGb9zsMnDab3LJdx1 I=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AwhCE3xJ2exk39l7ESNmcpTVXNCE6p7X5OBIU4Z?= =?us-ascii?q?M7irVIN76u5InmIFeCtKd2lFGcW4Ld5roEkOfQv636EU04qZea+DFnEtRXUg?= =?us-ascii?q?Mdz8AfngguGsmAXE72MPfscwQxHd9JUxlu+HToeUU=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIAADRtxxd/5RdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUwUBAQEBCwGBFC9QA2pVIAQLKIQcg0cDhFKJcoJbl0aBLhS?= =?us-ascii?q?BEANUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEQAIXggsjNAkOAQMBAQQBAQIBBW2KNwyFSgEBAQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?SEQoTAQElEgEPAgEIEQQBASsCAgIwHQgBAQQBDQUIGoMBgR1NAx0BmWkCgTi?= =?us-ascii?q?IYHGBMoJ5AQEFhRAYghIJgTQBi14XgUA/gRFGgh4uPoQMOoMIMoImjA2CW4R?= =?us-ascii?q?8giiUMwkCghaUGoIrhxyMWoFQjTCBMJYDAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFQOIFYcBU7gmy?= =?us-ascii?q?CQQwXg06KU3KBKYoyK4IlAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,446,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="582849984"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Jul 2019 14:13:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x63EDHMu008386 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:13:17 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:13:16 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:13:16 -0500
Received: from NAM05-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:13:16 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=aGBYkByOxK6a/hx4LMuHp2i3dvDWsbgq484jPlLncP8=; b=ZRKFtSUgcIS8oGA6NzeljrUyqFCAOSJ+s9+UtgzYpbrQ7H0tg3qg+eTSofdkFarnEpi4lHH5b/w8E1Sgih7ki7fvn54wvV2S22xmzFDz8rIk7nDZHt00ChmnNXQboJyUcARd0FDaNzxdOhEvSCtn/mbvc8j8YcT9mCtRK5FYQTM=
Received: from DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.168.103.22) by DM5PR11MB1979.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.87.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2032.20; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:13:14 +0000
Received: from DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3cb3:24e6:1ba8:bba5]) by DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3cb3:24e6:1ba8:bba5%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:13:14 +0000
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution@ietf.org>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some comments about the flags in draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-11
Thread-Index: AdUZtXNNpFwWiZR2SGe57tDeoqrMCwX8hpJA
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:13:14 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR11MB2027C8332D6B5B3DFE5B3A20C1FB0@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CCE11BEC@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CCE11BEC@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ketant@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0e0:1008::ba]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a3c40d93-b3c9-4af7-fd79-08d6ffc096c2
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR11MB1979;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR11MB1979:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR11MB19791B3480256805956C4BF3C1FB0@DM5PR11MB1979.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00872B689F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(346002)(376002)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(199004)(189003)(68736007)(66476007)(66556008)(66446008)(81166006)(2906002)(81156014)(33656002)(74316002)(5660300002)(2501003)(46003)(478600001)(52536014)(8676002)(64756008)(7736002)(66946007)(8936002)(6436002)(14454004)(446003)(73956011)(186003)(316002)(6306002)(71190400001)(54896002)(55016002)(25786009)(53936002)(99286004)(7696005)(256004)(9686003)(4326008)(71200400001)(229853002)(76116006)(110136005)(6116002)(14444005)(53546011)(6506007)(6246003)(486006)(790700001)(476003)(11346002)(86362001)(102836004)(76176011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR11MB1979; H:DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: fi4pMED9z3VKHq9tQ/QL2MR8KzkjTeiwqPXXKHMkcc7qHnroJKf6Z2roOos6a7RuAY6CpVV+dNfVW5x7ZeQMz/TYD0qKIvOSSFyx53PLcSztjCTprkuCnk/r4jd9gHFAb3RcO21K0xteeSZ2zPpXlUPtmf07WdsEuopGoJhZ52+oJbmqSQKNPyv1lPoBxxNkIIsOyRHc4d3J3fkyqu2JLestHpTGnRTLRCfMt0ZS+bLDD2ycJooOKshG8D5dBTnjVsrRZ20/jZosZizDKQW2k9a6IiJjoQ4o1+HxqVifDDY6oZ3dkJgLV+z8SX1rklvkdKDQZiIxLzYEuSyi7S/t1P0gdWxxBK4jSjlMiQ1aT078GePGiH9cCuMv4bIwQTipOBCExmBXja8dJOd++kOcGUbOORP5x81eXPAbFML9Rus=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR11MB2027C8332D6B5B3DFE5B3A20C1FB0DM5PR11MB2027namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a3c40d93-b3c9-4af7-fd79-08d6ffc096c2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Jul 2019 14:13:14.6688 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ketant@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR11MB1979
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Df1BnyKC5eztdDJjZpbSBDh5pVM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Some comments about the flags in draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-11
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 14:13:50 -0000

+ IDR list

Hi Jie,

Please check inline below for responses.

From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>
Sent: 03 June 2019 08:26
To: draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution@ietf.org
Subject: Some comments about the flags in draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-11

Dear coauthors,

After reviewing the latest version of this draft, here are some comments about the description of the flags:


1)      6.1. SR Binding SID
*  S-Flag : Indicates the BSID value in use is specified or provisioned value when set and dynamically allocated value when clear.

o  Provisioned BSID: Optional field used to report the explicitly provisioned BSID value as indicated by the S-Flag being clear.
When the provisioned BSID is unavailable, there can be two cases, in the first case a dynamically allocated BSID is used, in another case a statically configured BSID is used.
[KT] Provisioned BSID indicates a statically configured (when using a mgmt. interface like CLI or Yang) or signaled (when using a protocol like PCEP or BGP-SRTE) value. The Provisioned BSID field never carries a dynamically allocated value. So we only have the second case you mention.

In both cases the Provisioned BSID needs to be reported using BGP-LS, which means the provisioned BSID needs to be reported regardless of the value of the S-flag. Thus it is suggested to remove “as indicated by the S-Flag being clear.”
[KT] The S-flag indicates whether the CP had a provisioned BSID value or not. I think it would be clearer if the text was “Optional field used to report the explicitly provisioned BSID value when the S-Flag is set.” We can fix this in the next version if you agree.



2)      6.2. SR Candidate Path State
      *  V-Flag : Indicates the CP has at least one valid SID-List when set.

In some cases a candidate path may not be verified, should the V-flag also be set?  The similar cases are described in the V-flag definition in 6.5 “SR Segment List” and 6.6 “SR Segment”, where the V-flag is set when the verification was not required.
[KT] You are right that a CP may not be verified. We have an E flag that indicates whether it has been verified or not in the first place. So the V flag comes into picture only if E is set. Otherwise, validation has not been done and hence V flag is not set.

Thus it is suggested to use the similar statement in the definition of V-flag of SR Candidate Path State: “Indicates the CP has at least one valid SID-List or its verification was not required when set and failed verification when clear.”
[KT] Does it help to indicate explicitly that the V flag should be clear when the CP has not been verified (i.e. when E flag is clear)?

These are minor changes to the description of Flags, while they can help to clarify the setting of the flags in different cases.
[KT] Agree. Please let know your views and we can accordingly update the text in the next update.

Thanks,
Ketan

Thoughts?

Best regards,
Jie