Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533)
Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Thu, 07 October 2010 18:05 UTC
Return-Path: <rcallon@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2E73A6F9B for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtkDpfKDzwFz for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D38B3A714A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTK4MJbjbx1OEUblRB7FqryXbxT1Eg4EP@postini.com; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:06:36 PDT
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:05:12 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:05:11 -0400
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, Benjamin Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:05:10 -0400
Thread-Topic: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533)
Thread-Index: ActmIHqFgmRflPAmS6m2JEjIqF0I3QAJvSTw
Message-ID: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB177049AA633AB42@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <20100929173931.1B2F0E06C4@rfc-editor.org> <38C5A032-A518-4CFA-B387-CE6F9BF01F6C@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4CADC554.6040307@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CADC554.6040307@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "danfrost@cisco.com" <danfrost@cisco.com>, "italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.com" <italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.com>, "adrian.farrel@huawei.com" <adrian.farrel@huawei.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:05:34 -0000
I agree with Stewart that the correction is not needed. I am neutral regarding whether the correction should be rejected, or should be set to "hold for document update" (the latter implying that if and when RFC5960 is updated, the authors and working group will deal with the comment at that time). Ross -----Original Message----- From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 9:04 AM To: Benjamin Niven-Jenkins Cc: italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.com; mpls@ietf.org; danfrost@cisco.com; adrian.farrel@huawei.com; RFC Errata System Subject: Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533) Speaking as an author, my view is that the original text is correct, and the correction is not needed. It's a fundamental of the IP protocol suite (which includes MPLS) that the parser knows what protocol to expect from the previous header or if there is no previous header from an identifier in the lower layer. Indeed the "correction" makes an additional statement, but I don't think that is needed because it's an implication of the existing text. - Stewart On 30/09/2010 01:18, Benjamin Niven-Jenkins wrote: > While the intent of reported errata is technically correct I'm somewhat torn between whether I think it should be rejected, or whether I don't care. > > My thinking is: > > The errata is technically correct because a corner case does exist where a section layer that doesn't support higher layer protocol multiplexing can still be used to support MPLS-TP in some scenarios. > > I don't like the proposed replacement text because the original text is placing a requirement on the section layer technology and I think it is reasonable to say "if you want your section layer to work with MPLS-TP it MUST do/support X", however I don't think it's reasonable to say "if you want your section layer to work with MPLS-TP it MAY have to do X" (which is essentially the change the proposed text makes) because it leaves it unclear as to what is actually required from the section layer which practically reduces to section layers having to support X anyway so it becomes a (implicit) MUST in any case. > > Furthermore the original text only states that a section layer MUST have a means of identifying the type of payload. If a section layer does not support multiplexing then it has an implicit means of identifying the payload by the interface over which the payload arrived and therefore it meets the requirement as stated by the original text. > > Ben > > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 18:39, RFC Errata System wrote: > >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5960, >> "MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5960&eid=2533 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Italo Busi<italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.com> >> >> Section: 3.2 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> A section MUST provide a means of identifying the type of payload it >> carries. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> A section MAY be required to provide a mechanism for multiplexing MPLS >> with other protocols. >> >> >> Notes >> ----- >> This change is intended to clarify that providing a multiplexing capability for a section layer is optional. >> >> See https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/916/ >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC5960 (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-04) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture >> Publication Date : August 2010 >> Author(s) : D. Frost, Ed., S. Bryant, Ed., M. Bocci, Ed. >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Multiprotocol Label Switching >> Area : Routing >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533) RFC Errata System
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2… Benjamin Niven-Jenkins
- [mpls] R: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (25… BUSI, ITALO (ITALO)
- Re: [mpls] R: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960… Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [mpls] R: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960… Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [mpls] R: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2… Ross Callon
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2… John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2… Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)
- [mpls] R: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (25… BUSI, ITALO (ITALO)