Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Wed, 28 November 2018 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 022B5130E27; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:05:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.83
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 bCQBrlDfvsOk; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7052A128A6E; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108160.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wASM4U5c024867; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:05:11 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=a2T1+igZfG4bTEmZ36YOFNrw4bmS/x9Ktf2XgQYxNqY=; b=lXZyRBmoL0BRrTST1qelrgH/m8apNa4/qRRgiHNeqsKogSDBQccjNBMu2PIE63OTrZew 0l4aOeyUREWFp46UKSEQOf7BeJlqc4k1LIl8rq5weEI3sdBkGG8x2+yvqmC0Qq+/tr11 TDn5YsxOjMQtW23qs/+TwBcIok5VqbRMq+1t9Y4dPz2Zv6zCzJ5/snsYAW322v5doQ/k 6TvsVqC9cAMS/QUEnonT2yyy7FzUiiNvMfUw0AlxjUW0HpS/ipOIDZqJE2o797KfzCQy udAbR6rWYmuy5S+u8u7GJzqfbuKDURCZ3NQPY86WCZJPU+s/lDDcEhP7T2HZd8swts1j OQ==
Received: from nam03-dm3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03lp0019.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.19]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2p1u1th0cp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:05:10 -0800
Received: from BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.133.223.33) by BN7PR05MB4180.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.132.220.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1361.12; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:05:06 +0000
Received: from BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2415:1355:f5f1:7a63]) by BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2415:1355:f5f1:7a63%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1361.019; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:05:05 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]
Thread-Index: AQHUh2Ib4QmAiBIvjkWj/F8JbfZa/qVlvWPw
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:05:04 +0000
Message-ID: <BN7PR05MB4354E24C37DB62D04A3CF104C7D10@BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMMESsyXWjVrCMG83HUUmMrSNzUvPvdRE6PSa7OAmOJgNtzMpg@mail.gmail.com> <130DB3CF-2B31-4CAE-ABE6-E1B79A330820@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <130DB3CF-2B31-4CAE-ABE6-E1B79A330820@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.600.7
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN7PR05MB4180; 6:h1OwnFQsz7x8esGy8wOad3wqiKr9CDAMEvblb3rCAS+kGNutD+lVY2LADkS8Equgj+AiT4QnUT7XxbdXeyCDuOu5TbP7aGw2Nzl0Ea8/eW0wfmdJ66cjHA7qxblKoK2mUDPcPCj09HHAgVhmLQkbkmF+PgNaOVHKmBqvMasCgWXW/yWeCh/27jSTKhXWGH8ZgKICbbKGqQ005kMTF17Y3YCWHyU3UAY/0WnydizsZP8VK28fB+uAgaWafe8i5Hf1tIluFR60macF5zczSWUQ9UBGafHd8KFIq+VMUZZQNsX5hqzktlGvHBcAPE2ZtUPGxWffunAQFa3sGBhpdumTzUbR62umSUYR9rjbcmXh/5nX33iP8Li+fg4JcudBvsXI3j6B3GG1ForFjE9Fk0ZKct0C7dQweA0ncXUrSQF2YZ8BY5vMyVrT8TYNSJ71tWFxWjiApozQBxQPsoXBIRUBNg==; 5:pGlaelBI5EZMSUpUjSv1HXf84dX1krDCARYClBJSVMS/eNX0PlxYM1Gv3kXNASSBN4ELAlVCAqMwxBw7WckuPl8aNFmWcVD0w1olLRpyiVb+PuX1jbnTDGWW6SifGkwqT733yMs0/dKbomqp+YL7xus1fQx0frdi5ZqJrdJLLHs=; 7:jlEQMkKSdJZKSJJ6HxeFyDuz+xjGnakUYUbk5HEAf7zolESplECtFjZXnRxs4tEvEFetPSYnTPle4SnCf8A8DukEpqRX0xPA6NVda6laq8vy/54eFFcOv8Z1dFslt0mwTaGTCMFANFD2sbhV1alRZQ==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;SOR;
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(37854004)(189003)(51444003)(199004)(33656002)(68736007)(5660300001)(25786009)(446003)(11346002)(486006)(66066001)(606006)(102836004)(71190400001)(3846002)(316002)(2906002)(229853002)(74316002)(8936002)(476003)(71200400001)(106356001)(105586002)(478600001)(14454004)(551984002)(53546011)(256004)(6246003)(186003)(26005)(6116002)(55016002)(6306002)(54896002)(76176011)(39060400002)(4326008)(53936002)(9686003)(54906003)(966005)(81166006)(1941001)(81156014)(86362001)(790700001)(7696005)(6436002)(7736002)(236005)(110136005)(99286004)(9326002)(8676002)(97736004)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN7PR05MB4180; H:BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 834dc17e-e534-4206-d701-08d6557d8d80
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BN7PR05MB4180;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR05MB4180:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN7PR05MB4180CE9E8013676614A577BFC7D10@BN7PR05MB4180.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(3231443)(999002)(944501410)(52105112)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:BN7PR05MB4180; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN7PR05MB4180;
x-forefront-prvs: 0870212862
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: f5bGt0i/0WKFoIRbJKXY6B3dGLuNDdffR0W3ZvsCfJF1m/h509rvYzqG7z1tlZ01TWYXsK8NnQFGK/A8gK/HQKkfR1ueRovXqyH9sqV4qhPQyn1LJ9vzLn+D0TgVrhg4woRu1qNBgY8ju8hmJQrLPoShbp2YlTioBLGKBjobw2GHN9G68OiTvF9n4I9UysRjzhXM0m9NlSxls8BcXsGKGN5L4Hr/g3uCOi/6+o85DsybJW7ky2z01INh24gSXjcH5BTDbfs9IfBP2NpPcTmuy+4d77tm8j+swJ5IqduUqcynBlpiiGPrkVJHz4QwwNGGXMETEJ5ePaKyIObLBXaeE8s2r4I6mKq9mqDSH435DFs=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN7PR05MB4354E24C37DB62D04A3CF104C7D10BN7PR05MB4354namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 834dc17e-e534-4206-d701-08d6557d8d80
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Nov 2018 22:05:05.0176 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR05MB4180
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-11-28_12:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1811280190
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/K29YA44VFSWXoz-PKotxYKNFgig>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]
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, 28 Nov 2018 22:05:16 -0000

Hi,

Comments inline

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 4:34 PM
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org; Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]

+lsr to the cc

Hi Alvaro,

On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:01 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

[major] AFAICT, Available Bandwidth is the only definition that is different between rfc7810/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis and rfc7471.  The difference comes from the correction made to address this report [1].  Instead of trying to fix the definition here, I think that a similar report should be filed against rfc7471.  Please submit it and I will approve.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata_eid5486&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=pNTkxj6RjNdyIYjBZKCUjdk9QWVKbBBhnnfj9xq2jjU&s=QvXYEMqBgaIkuM7plcuybtDVxI3JTI-4EndPcX0ier8&e=>

Maybe I'm missing something but isn't that erratum all wrong?

Here is why I think so. I agree that there is a problem with the RFC 7810 paragraph in question:


   Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a

   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point

   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding

   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth

   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual

   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled

   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component

   link available bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the

   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a

   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the

   component link available bandwidths.

It seems obvious that there was a cut-and-paste problem or similar, since the same sentence is duplicated with minor changes. But the erratum leaves the duplication! The erratum wants it to be:


Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a

   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point

   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding

   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth

   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual

   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled

   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component

   link (residual) bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the

   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.For a

   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the

   component link available bandwidths.

So the proposed "fix" is to leave the sentence duplicated, but change "available" to "(residual)" in the first copy? I don't think that could possibly be right. Just eyeballing it, it seems to me as though the correct fix would be to change the paragraph to be:


   Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a

   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point

   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding

   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth

   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual

   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled

   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component

   link available bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the

   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a

   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the

   component link available bandwidths.



[JD]  John's suggestion, above, is correct.

in which case it would match RFC 7471. Or possibly:


   Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a

   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point

   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding

   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth

   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual

   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled

   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component

   link available residual bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the

   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a

   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the

   component link available bandwidths.

I have no idea which of these is right, but the erratum can't be right. Naively, they look algebraically the same, it's just a matter of where in the equation you subtract the measured bandwidth. Maybe they truly are exactly equivalent or maybe there is some subtlety that makes one right and one wrong.

If the first option above is right, then RFC 7471 looks to be correct as written. If the first option is wrong, then RFC 7471 would need its own erratum as you suggest, I guess.

$0.02,

--John

P.S.: I see the defect remains in draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00.