Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working Group Last Call : draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04]
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 05 October 2020 14:38 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF84C3A0B23; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 07:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 mp6VYGofljsZ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 07:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 B5E7C3A0B2D; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 095Ebssb007595; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:37:54 +0100
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE002203B; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:37:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1ABD2203C; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:37:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([213.205.192.60]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 095Eboxj012590 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:37:53 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Martin Vigoureux' <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org
References: <00d001d698d4$f1bca890$d535f9b0$@olddog.co.uk> <2bd58cc3-4995-8346-cb77-ae0d81fe355d@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <2bd58cc3-4995-8346-cb77-ae0d81fe355d@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 15:37:49 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <026501d69b25$1b6c35a0$5244a0e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQIopY8CQdoe9fnKhGf+rPScRcluxQIq8AVeqNOnE0A=
X-Originating-IP: 213.205.192.60
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25706.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--26.780-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--26.780-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25706.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--26.780300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFpfsB4HYR80Zh3Pziq4eLUfaMmm586o4gCEzN6u0/vUVyZK RIFpXA+BKgu3wA/rn06oEqkKu0SlDfYJVFK3+7e9E9L0HNvKzVGlAfiiC1VA/atNdpFrZXd8WKo DKTsuRuSMrjTLwXAjolTcsSRvflNNQSWnAG0egjGgEgF6J/LtvAX/tYZf6r/w31GU/N5W5BB7Mo GOLT7cXpGcvIlvEx3zc3KrQbBqeDfkEToQJUIf8zMvozJIQnRWas1wAJHsfyJQ5Z2rmLs/uAnAL CneuQeF2nPTJ66uXI8UsZ6zwnK8ZNxzjdVS8wPAUrViw6AaT1HAqRukGkkpQoTa63gQe8yZqjqF xcD2zqQjJSHdeMJwWAAFzw1smOZeqW+NTJXdhQpgqbvjZaUg3geCHewokHM/nfhwoL2rlR4Y8df j5o9RIkTzIN6Psm0WhYtNyho9wwtJH11OOVB0ya78ETDb69mDKmiyrJHNh3K2a8Gr1LCHzX8959 tRYfUf87iqmK5tOGzT0HqIsqMzg7mvMSppeWbNOJJP0pnMGEXLRD51bz5RZG1RcrL9l9kZpUj6I FzjrtJ60FCjuld9b0PO49DzB6P26vQUV4NWGLP40JAO63QrhVlszaF8fhheyIsEtBD7SqAEPZ/F Ntxg3wI72Y570KtpSiIDtsa93LXxPdkZBNfrSeLbvXwDQz25lFGUu7DBzhgbVUVEY6U/rwY1yj5 dODZPVCsMlzW0RMbkFpC4bGxef0KPluOEKT3/KO2+bS8WGa089zBT8EOluatkcxxU6EVI7vwkzz 88kq3rw2rmN+CDC8uT6pyURQPh5UcZtwNsCrqDGx/OQ1GV8v1vTGBiuZrtU2Qzq85WfnB0HSe13 1POnuJGF26G8SWy5yM0c1ktj9M=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/BXwxtsuu69qUdkzkIcyWdb3Pj34>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working Group Last Call : draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04]
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 14:38:02 -0000
Thanks Martin, I'm sure the authors will jump on these. Nice catch of the transposed digits! Best, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> Sent: 04 October 2020 23:03 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working Group Last Call : draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04] Hi I should read the docs in my queue instead but ... a sub-registry is used when a code point allocated in a registry need code points scoped by that or a set of code points. this is a bit hard to parse. at least s/need/needs/ The range of each TLV and sub-TLV registry is divided into two blocks, one with a range from 0 to 32767 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that require a response if not recognized. The other block has the range from 32768 to 65535 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that may be silently dropped, stepped over or an error message sent, if not recognized. this seems like saying exactly the same thing than what the two bullet points above (in the draft) say. In: o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use range (37140-37143) or from the FCFS range (31744-32767) a the Return Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") will be sent in the echo response. and in the table of: 3.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs 37140-37143 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned is the range correct? shouldn't it be 31740-31743? BTW, This table doesn't have a number like all other. May be you should call it Table 1 (and renumber all other). Section 2 says: o In the listing of assiged code points the term "Vendor Private Use" is changed to "Private Use". but 3.3.1 says: o In the listing of assignments the term "Vendor Private Use" is changed to "First Come First Served (FCFS)". note there are other differences: o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use". o A note saying "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration procedures "Experimental Use". o In the lists that capture the assignment status, the fields that are reserved, i.e. 0 (zero), Private Use and Experimental Use are clearly marked as such. o In the list that captures assignment status, the fields that are reserved, i.e. 0 (zero) and Experimental Use are clearly marked. Not sure whether they are intentional. Some referenced RFCs use the concept "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs" to indicate that, if a TLV or sub-TLV of the range 0-16383 or 16384-31743 in a message is not understood, an error message needs to be sent in response. RFC 8029 talks about mandatory TLVs for a range up to 32767: Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 0) are mandatory TLVs BTW you says that clearly in 4.1, so I think this should be consistent here. You say: The Value field contains the TLVs, including sub-TLVs, that were not understood, encoded as sub-TLVs. But 8209 was saying: The Value field contains the TLVs that were not understood, encoded as sub-TLVs. This is not only a "removing mandatory" change. you seem to now impose that sub-TLVs be sent. Is that the intent? In Tables 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 20 | 37140-37144 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned | | 31748-32767 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that | are these ranges correct? shouldn't they be | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned | | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs anf sub- | Nits: s/This docuemtment/This document/ s/An exasmple/An example/ s/contaimer for regiistries/container for registries/ s/sunregistry/sub-registry/ s/assiged/assigned/ s/range for "RFC Required" range/"RFC Required" range/ s/i.e. 0/i.e., 0/ (2 occurences) s/registry [IANA-RC] registry/registry [IANA-RC]/ s/sennt/sent/ s/First come, first served/First Come First Served/ s/defintions/definitions/ s/Experimetal Use/Experimental Use/ s/a the/a/ s/srange (64508-64511). or/range (64508-64511) or/ s/sub- TLVs/sub-TLVs/ s/TLVs an sub/TLVs and sub/ s/TLVs anf sub/TLVs and sub/ s/First Come Frst Served (FCFS)/First Come First Served (FCFS)/ s/Experiemental Use/Experimental Use/ s/The first set are/The first set is/ s/the second set are/the second set is/ s/the range there the/the range of/? s/The text in those two paragraphs are/The text in those two paragraphs is/ s/resereved/reserved/ (9 occurences) s/Four code point has/Four code points have/ (3 occurences) s/Two small sets, 4 code points each, has/Two small sets, 4 code points each, have/ (7 occurences) s/recognised/recognized/ beyond that, I support this document moving forward. -m Le 2020-10-02 à 17:59, Adrian Farrel a écrit : > I know this is not the most exciting document the working group has ever > produced, but as shepherd I need to see some comments and expressions of > support. > > Thanks, > Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 24 September 2020 17:32 > To: 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org > Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call : > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04 > > Hi MPLS WG, > > As previously noted, I'm the shepherd for this document and I'm running the > working group last call as agreed by the chairs. > > This email starts a two-week last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update/ > > Please send your opinions to the mailing list before October 9th. > > While yes/no opinions are not without value, it is far more helpful if you > can indicate whether you have read the latest version of the draft, and what > the reasons are for your opinions. > > Of course, all of your review comments will be helpful in improving the > document. > > Best, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > 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] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working Gro… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… tom petch
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… tom petch
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working… Gyan Mishra