Re: [mpls] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stewart,

That proposal looks good, and should cover the 0x000A vs IANA value topic.

I trust you to do something useful with my other comments (including the
request to incoprorate by reference the security considerations from RFCs
6374 and 8372), so I'm willing to clear my discuss if that shows up as the
RFC Editor note.

I do still have some concern about things like where we say in Section 7.1
"The packet format of an RFC6374 Time Bucket Jitter Measurement Message is
shown", but I don't understand what the correct text should be well enough
to be able to hold a discuss for it.  I suspect that the intent is
something like "an (RFC6374 Query Message) that specifically is a (Time
Bucket Jitter Measurement Message) is shown", but that's way too awkward a
phrasing to put in an RFC, and I'm not even sure I'm correct about the
relationship between the RFC 6374 Query and what we're defining here.
(There are other message formats that have similar text in later sections
but I just mention the one.)

Thanks for thinking up a less-intrusive fix for this one; I would have gone
with something messier and harder to get right.

-Ben

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 01:09:22PM +0000, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Actually doing manual uploads is always a problem.
> 
> Here is the text change I proposed as an editor's note that Deborah could put in the IESG writeup if that satisfactorily resolves the issue. It will get picked up when I fix all the comments and issue a new version of the fully text.
> 
> OLD
> 
> 9.  Carrying RFC6374 Packets over an LSP using an SFL
> 
>    The packet format of an RFC6374 Query message using SFLs is shown in
>    Figure 5.
> 
> NEW
> 
> 9.  Carrying RFC6374 Packets over an LSP using an SFL
> 
>    We illustrate the packet format of an RFC6374 Query message using
>    SFLs for the case of an MPLS direct loss measurement in Figure 5.
> 
> END
> 
> =======
> 
> OLD
> 
>    RFC6378 and the optional UDP Return Object is defined in [RFC7876].
> 
> 9.1.  RFC6374 SFL TLV
> 
> NEW
> 
>    RFC6378 and the optional UDP Return Object is defined in [RFC7876].
> 
>    Where a measurement other than an MPLS direct loss measurement is to
>    be made, the appropriate RFC6374 measurement message is used (for
>    example, one of the new types defined in this document) and this is
>    indicated to the receiver by the use of the corresponding ACH type.
> 
> 9.1.  RFC6374 SFL TLV
> 
> =========
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Stewart
>