[mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5036 (4465)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 06 September 2015 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A5E1B5766 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 HIuDnZEVVkUl for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E621B5765 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 1FD3A1832B6; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: loa@pi.se, ina@juniper.net, rhthomas@cisco.com, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, loa@pi.nu, swallow@cisco.com, rcallon@juniper.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20150906064847.1FD3A1832B6@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/AJe2yOGAgj1t5gYO_5q-WemeClQ>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, guijuan.wang@ericsson.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5036 (4465)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 06:49:34 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5036,
"LDP Specification".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5036&eid=4465

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Label advertisement mode negotiation rule is different in two sections <guijuan.wang@ericsson.com>

Section: 3.5.3

Original Text
-------------
when the label advertisement mode is different between LSR peers,
the resolving rule is defined twice in two chapters, 
both use "must" or "SHOULD NOT", but they are completely different.

The first rule: 
In section 3.5.3 
   A, Label Advertisement Discipline
         (skip the first paragraph)

         If one LSR proposes Downstream Unsolicited and the other
         proposes Downstream on Demand, the rules for resolving this
         difference is:

         -  If the session is for a label-controlled ATM link or a
            label-controlled Frame Relay link, then Downstream on Demand
            MUST be used.

         -  Otherwise, Downstream Unsolicited MUST be used.


The second rule: 
In section 3.5.7.1.3.

   In general, the upstream LSR is responsible for requesting label
   mappings when operating in Downstream on Demand mode.  However,
   unless some rules are followed, it is possible for neighboring LSRs
   with different advertisement modes to get into a livelock situation
   where everything is functioning properly, but no labels are 
   distributed.  For example, consider two LSRs Ru and Rd where Ru is
   the upstream LSR and Rd is the downstream LSR for a particular FEC.
   In this example, Ru is using Downstream Unsolicited advertisement
   mode and Rd is using Downstream on Demand mode.  In this case, Rd may
   assume that Ru will request a label mapping when it wants one and Ru
   may assume that Rd will advertise a label if it wants Ru to use one.
   If Rd and Ru operate as suggested, no labels will be distributed from
   Rd to Ru.

   This livelock situation can be avoided if the following rule is
   observed: an LSR operating in Downstream on Demand mode SHOULD NOT be
   expected to send unsolicited mapping advertisements.  Therefore, if
   the downstream LSR is operating in Downstream on Demand mode, the
   upstream LSR is responsible for requesting label mappings as needed.

Corrected Text
--------------
It's better to settle down which rule to use for this case. 
Seems the first one is simpler for implementment.

Or if you want to keep both rules, 
better to enumerate both of those two rules in each section, 
and say the implement can choose any of them.


Notes
-----


Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5036 (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-04)
--------------------------------------
Title               : LDP Specification
Publication Date    : October 2007
Author(s)           : L. Andersson, Ed., I. Minei, Ed., B. Thomas, Ed.
Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG