Re: [mpls] R: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533)

Hello Italo,

I agree with your proposal.
This text was drafted in cooperation.

Regards, Huub.

=====
> I am copying the ITU-T ad-hoc mailing list because this discussion is very relevant also to the ITU-T work.
>
> A bit of background information: the main intent of this Errata is to address one of the two ITU-T comments that have not been addressed before the publication of RFC5960.
>
> The text proposed in the Errata is an exact copy of the text proposed in the ITU-T LS that reflects the discussion done during the last ITU-T SG15 plenary meeting (with the contribution of IETF experts).
>
> I think we can resolve the comment with different text as long as it can be agreed by both ITU-T and IETF.
>
> A possible alternative could be:
>
> "
> A section MAY be required to provide a mechanism for multiplexing MPLS with other protocols. In this case, a means of identifying the type of payload it carries MUST be provided.
> "
>
> Any other opinion/view?
>
> Thanks, Italo
>
>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>> Da: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di
>> Benjamin Niven-Jenkins
>> Inviato: giovedì 30 settembre 2010 2.19
>> A: RFC Errata System
>> Cc: BUSI, ITALO (ITALO); mpls@ietf.org; danfrost@cisco.com;
>> adrian.farrel@huawei.com; stbryant@cisco.com
>> Oggetto: Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533)
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 
================================================================
                   http://www.van-helvoort.eu/
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...