Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

Gregory Mirsky <> Wed, 08 April 2015 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8671B3339 for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t40YKqIzByN9 for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECA6C1B330C for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79686d0000030a8-9e-5524fa2d3f4a
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 71.58.12456.D2AF4255; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 11:51:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:00:45 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: Nobo Akiya <>, 'Ross Callon' <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf
Thread-Index: AQHQb/4e6lxvQUESVUS7PAp42TBBtZ0/b/8AgAPZikA=
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:00:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <005801d07006$789a7ed0$69cf7c70$>
In-Reply-To: <005801d07006$789a7ed0$69cf7c70$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt67uL5VQg+O3zS0mnHrAZPH90hIW i1tLV7JaPDn3jsXi74orLA6sHjtn3WX3WLLkJ5PH9aar7B5fLn9mC2CJ4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL 4MpY8GwjS8E/3Yr/3TeYGxivqHQxcnJICJhIvHu3gA3CFpO4cG89kM3FISRwlFHi1qlWVghn GaPE1f0TmUCq2ASMJF5s7GEHsUUECiVm9U5jAiliFtjBKHH78GxWkISwQLTE1ukXmLsYOYCK YiTmtRhC1FtJzJ+zjRHEZhFQkXjU/4wNpIRXwFdi8g05iF1PgcasugV2EaeAhUTrpz/MIDYj 0HXfT60Bu4FZQFzi1pP5TBBXC0gs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8rhK0kMWnpOVaIej2JG1OnsEHY2hLL Fr4Gq+cVEJQ4OfMJywRGsVlIxs5C0jILScssJC0LGFlWMXKUFqeW5aYbGWxiBEbWMQk23R2M e15aHmIU4GBU4uFNCFYJFWJNLCuuzD3EKM3BoiTOu+jBwRAhgfTEktTs1NSC1KL4otKc1OJD jEwcnFINjBOT5x3/pxdwWCuvzs/gwfTVLNwWbke0TnhtmLG1UCjfdpP/n/8SVzZf4bES0rH6 tbo2Us/E53L1notfSube4ZkdwL4t8JDCVyP55BC7yLPdXn7Ve9n4zogyHX2u0mf2z0Tz3bZg F2nz7CvH6lOX/H1Qzex8/uXk8Llq1mwMti4Jir6VRQaFSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAqemLAo0CAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:02:57 -0000

Hi Nobo,
greatly appreciate your review and thoughtful comments. I'll send another note to propose resolutions by next week (digging out of two-weeks of e-mail).

	Kind regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Nobo Akiya
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 6:10 PM
To: 'Ross Callon';
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

Hi Ross,

My apologies for being late.

I skipped over all the PM details, but read rest of the document. This document defines an important functionality for TP OAM, and I do support its progress.

I did spot few things which should be addressed in the document (especially
#1 and #4).

1. Section 2.2

      - BFD Configuration sub-TLV, which MUST be included if either the
      CC, the CV or both OAM Function flags being set in the OAM
      Function Flags Sub-TLV [RFC7260].

I'm guessing that above is a copy & paste error/leftover. MPLS OAM Function TLV is defined in the section 2.2 of the draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf document, and the TLV has MPLS OAM TLV Flags defined. We would want to refer to the MPLS OAM TLV Flags in the MPLS OAM Function TLV instead of OAM Function flags in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV defined in RFC7260.

And if above is true (and the text is corrected), then the reference to
RFC7260 can also be removed (as it is not mentioned anywhere else in this document).

2. Section 2.2

      This sub-TLV MUST carry a "BFD
      Local Discriminator sub-TLV" and a "Timer Negotiation Parameters
      sub-TLV" if the N flag is cleared.  The "Source MEP-ID sub-TLV"
      MUST also be included.  If the I flag is set, the "BFD
      Authentication sub-TLV" MAY be included.

I think above should be removed, as it is a subset (and a bit confusion
subset) of what is better described at the end of Section 2.2.1 anyways.

3. Section 2.2.1

         In this case an updated
         Negotiation Timer Parameters sub-TLV, containing values
         supported by the egress node, is returned to the ingress.

Above is probably a good place to reference RFC7419 to prevent problematic interop of multiple devices.

4. Section 2.2.4

There needs to be some synchronicity between AuthType/AuthKeyID to specified in "this" MPLS echo request message and AuthType/AuthKeyID being used by BFD control packets. For example:

- If BFD control packets using "new" auth is received by the egress LSR before MPLS echo request with new "auth" is received, all BFD control packets using "new" auth will be dropped.
- To take that a step further, if BFD control packets using "new" auth is received by the egress LSR before "this" MPLS echo request is received by the egress LSR and corresponding BFD session is updated to point to the "new" auth , all BFD control packets using "new" auth will be dropped.
- If BFD control packets using "new" auth is only sent X time after sending the MPLS echo request with new "auth", then it is not guaranteed that the egress LSR will still be accepting BFD control packets with "old" auth for X amount of time.
- And of course there's the error case of the egress LSR not being able to support the specified the "new" auth specified in received MPLS echo request, but the ingress LSR starts using the "new" auth before it receives back NOSUP from the egress LSR via MPLS echo reply.

I suspect if sufficient details are not defined, we would likely run into some inter-op issues with this aspect.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Ross Callon
> Sent: April-05-15 5:10 PM
> To:
> Cc: Ross Callon;;
> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for
> oam-conf
> This working group last call has now ended.
> There was one public response (to the MPLS working group) in support. 
> I
> got private responses of support from two of the authors. Otherwise 
> there
> no responses (neither in favor nor opposed). This is not sufficient to
> "rough consensus". As such the working group last call has failed.
> My inclination is to wait for the July IETF (in Prague), and give the
authors an
> opportunity to present and solicit additional support. Depending upon 
> the response there, we may then repeat the WGLC.
> Thanks, Ross
> (as WG co-chair)
> From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Ross Callon
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:46 PM
> To:
> Cc:; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-
> Subject: [mpls] working group last call for
> conf
> Working Group,
> This is to initiate a working group last call on
> oam-conf-09.
> Because this WGLC will span the IETF in Dallas, it will be extended to
just over
> three weeks.
> Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (
> There are no IPR disclosures against this document. All the authors 
> have
> that they
> are not aware of any IPR that relates to this draft (two of the 
> responses
> private to
> the WG chairs).
> This working group last call ends Thursday  April 2, 2015.
> Ross
> for the MPLS WG chairs

mpls mailing list