Re: [mpls] Question about RFC 7439

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 15 January 2016 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
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 961311B2FA8 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:15:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 T4JCSoRorXTg for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFD041B2D30 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:15:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2994; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452881700; x=1454091300; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Xux1oBeqF9ykccF5cYCq/9c7acTva4kgmEKlmp/F6zE=; b=FPIND3SsKSxq9zHrz+iLU7RAvLxZxPyVCn/7Q5dLYzjC0hdHU2yTye4h fYH4x9ymVq7EMye8kcC1sV2DAA2BuK3cJtWSI3KPZZ51NfD0EpgD3aeiX o2Z+6dM+o7ngu+p6h5secsqunrnFehkdA/rUe+8SuQSsN0xntu3UKqeLy o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AnAgALNplW/4wNJK1egzpSbQaIULMsA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BYyKFbQKBODgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEEeQwEAgEIEQMBAi8yFAkIAQEEAQ0?= =?us-ascii?q?FiBsOwSwBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYhlWEf4E8iAEFg3mTIAGFRogXj?= =?us-ascii?q?wGOXAEgAQFCgh6BbHIBhSeBCAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,300,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="227879809"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Jan 2016 18:15:00 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com (xch-rtp-019.cisco.com [64.101.220.159]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0FIExVI022088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:15:00 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com (64.101.220.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:14:59 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:14:58 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "wesley.george@twcable.com" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
Thread-Topic: Question about RFC 7439
Thread-Index: AdFPmbjIaEL3wN4lQbyDhznKiLgSnwAJur2A
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:14:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D2BEA090.3494C%cpignata@cisco.com>
References: <06f301d14f9a$63011bf0$290353d0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <06f301d14f9a$63011bf0$290353d0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.0.151221
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.115.55]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <34F9B2FFE8F0B144829144068AA1AE5E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/LLjCSp2oM59mVZPYGnndRptjp7c>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Question about RFC 7439
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: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:15:05 -0000

Hi, Adrian,

I believe you are right, in removing Ā³MplsLsrIdentifier" from that
sentence. As you imply, the answer seems to be in S4 of RFC 7552, at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7552#section-4.

Thanks,

ā€¹ Carlos.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:41 AM
To: Wes George <wesley.george@twcable.com>, Carlos Pignataro
<cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Question about RFC 7439

>Hi Wes and Carlos,
>
>Embarrassingly I was the AD for this document, but I still have a
>question.
>
>Section 3.5 comments about MplsLsrIdentifier.
>It says that RFC 3811 "lack[s] support for IPv6 in defining
>MplsExtendedTunnelId
>and MplsLsrIdentifier."
>It also says that "[MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this gap by marking this
>textual
>convention as obsolete."
>
>Note that the second quote refers to just one TC.
>
>Looking at 3811, 5036, and (most importantly) 7552, it seems to me that
>the LSR
>Identifier is *always* a 32 bit quantity regardless of whether the LDP
>system is
>v4-only, v4/v6, or v6-only.
>
>Furthermore, draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis (i.e., [MPLS-TC]) clearly shows
>no
>change to MplsLsrIdentifier while marking MplsExtendedTunnelId as
>obsolete.
>
>Notwithstanding that draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis appears to have been
>abandoned
>in state "candidate for WG adoption", it looks to me that RFC 7439 has an
>error
>we could call a typo.
>
>I propose the following Errata Report...
>
>OLD
>3.5.  MIB Modules
>
>   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
>   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and
>   MplsLsrIdentifier.  These textual conventions are used in the MPLS-TE
>   MIB specification [RFC3812], the GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802]
>   and the FRR extension [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions
>   (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC]
>   tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as
>   obsolete.
>NEW
>3.5.  MIB Modules
>
>   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
>   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId.  This textual
>   conventions is used in the MPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC3812], the
>   GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802], and the FRR extension
>   [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol
>   Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this
>   gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete.
>END
>
>Am I wrong?
>
>Thanks,
>Adrian
>--
>Celebrate the New Year by buying someone you love a book.
>Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales
>http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
>Or buy from me direct.
>
>
>
>