Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-07.txt
"Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com> Sun, 12 October 2014 21:53 UTC
Return-Path: <nobo@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 B6C001A87C2 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.287
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.287 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=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, 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 n2M71ecH0cKH for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DE831A87AD for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8435; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413150788; x=1414360388; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=dd9kjmDjCP9j0d9OXckRy5Z2FAHSefFDiPBkGO1pIws=; b=Q3dpRGTL9jca+c6g5PIMvuqTKtUXn1LJDIFwuN67vk3iy9qQPWPiFeU6 JE0qvI4vwLeGLuTKCrmziJmWbMnm7ZjVLUCvQDvY1fQqYkGwtpi7mqwdG IWavTWeqmXV+88GShpvE/xnf76ljHL7JQ9Mijmc7z6zLthiXqFCVS0x9e c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFANP3OlStJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgmsjU1MFBMp1DIdLAoEGFgF9hAIBAQEEAQEBNy0HFwQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBycLFAgBCAIEARIIAYg1AQcFwwUBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXkBQ4BoMngR4Fj1+CGoRCiD48gwqDLYlyg36Dd2yBSIECAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,706,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="362474383"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2014 21:53:07 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9CLr63f000709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:53:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:53:06 -0500
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHP3N/yKiIOeV/h40KFxRIhCU+K2Zws9IjQ
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:53:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A4435D3@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <20140930184855.14746.88552.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B854360@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B854360@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.246.237]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/SXDRxRRpjwnYpBDJ50H1LW37fh4
Subject: Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-07.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 12 Oct 2014 21:53:09 -0000
Hi Greg, I have only read through half of the document, but please find below my comments. == Comments == (1) In Section 2.1 Typically intermediate nodes should not process or modify any of the OAM configuration TLVs but simply forward them to the end-node. Should above "should not" be upper case "SHOULD NOT"? (2) In Section 2.1.1, slight rephrase. [OLD] For this specification, BFD MUST be run in either one of the two modes: [NEW] For this specification, BFD MUST run in either one of the two modes: (3) In Section 2.2, naming convention The MPLS OAM Functions TLV presented in Figure 1 is carried as a TLV of the LSP Echo request/response messages [RFC4379]. Proper name is MPLS echo request/reply as per described in Section 3 of RFC4379. (4) In Section 2.2, there's an inconsistency with flags Figure 1 describes 5 flags (CVLDF) while Table 1 describes 6 flags (CVFLDT). (5) In Section 2.2, BFD Configuration sub-TLV ... If the I flag is set, the "BFD Authentication sub-TLV" may be included. The "may" should probably be "MAY" above. (6) In Section 2.2.1 Length: indicates the length of the TLV including sub-TLVs but excluding the Type and Length field, in octets. This description seems wrong. I think what you want to say is: Length: indicates the sub-TLV length in octets, excluding the sub- type and Length fields (4). (7) In Section 2.2.1 PHB: Identifies the Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) to be used for periodic continuity monitoring messages. Perhaps I missed this, but I couldn't find what goes into the PHB bits (3 bits) and what behaviors are expected. Can you elaborate? (8) In Section 2.2.1 Integrity (I): If set BFD Authentication MUST be enabled. If the BFD Configuration sub-TLV does not include a BFD Authentication sub-TLV the authentication MUST use Keyed SHA1 with an empty pre-shared key (all 0s). What happens when receiver cannot support the requested authentication (including SHA1 w/ an empty key)? (9) In Section 2.2.1 Encapsulation Capability (G): if set, it shows the capability of encapsulating BFD messages into G-ACh channel. If both the G bit and U bit are set, configuration gives precedence to the G bit. Encapsulation Capability (U): if set, it shows the capability of encapsulating BFD messages into IP/UDP packets. If both the G bit and U bit are set, configuration gives precedence to the G bit. If neither G nor U are set, then is that considered an error case? (10) In Section 2.2.1 The BFD Configuration sub-TLV MUST include the following sub-TLVs in the LSP Echo reply message: - Local Discriminator sub-TLV; Are we missing some error cases? For example, if Bidirectional(B) bit is not set, then there is no need for MPLS echo reply to contain "Local Discriminator sub-TLV", no? (11) In Section 2.2.1 Version: identifies the BFD protocol version. If a node does not support a specific BFD version an error must be generated: "OAM Problem/Unsupported OAM Version". I'm assuming that this error code is TBD2. However, in Section 3.2 (IANA Section), the name is slightly different. | TBD2 | MPLS OAM Unsupported Functionality | This document | Additionally, I didn't see any description on where/how other error codes (TBD3-TBD6) are to be used. I can guess, but perhaps it would be good idea to spell them out in relevant sections. (12) In Section 2.2.4 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BFD Auth. sub-type (103) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth Type | Auth Key ID | Reserved (0s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The value of this TLV mandates latter 16 bits to be all zero(0)'s. However, all authentication TLVs defined in RFC5880 and others (ex: draft-ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth) use the latter 16 bits (ex: Auth Key ID) but it's dependant on the Auth Type. Perhaps this sub-TLV can better be aligned. Something like: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BFD Auth. sub-type (103) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth Type | Auth Key ID | Depends on Auth Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ == Typos == (1) Typo in Table of Contents (and Section 2.2.8 title) s/2.2.8. Fault Managemet Signal sub-TLV/2.2.8. Fault Management Signal sub-TLV/ (2) Typo in Section 1.1 s/MEP - Maintanence Entity Group End Point/MEP - Maintenance Entity Group End Point/ (3) Typo in Section 2.2.4 s/exluding the Type/excluding the Type/ (4) Typo in Section 2.2.5 s/exluding the Type/excluding the Type/ (5) Typo in Section 3.1 s/allocation specied in that/allocation specified in that/ (6) Typo in Section 3.1 s/IANA maintians a registry/IANA maintains a registry/ (7) Typo in Section 3.1 s/IANA maintians a registry/IANA maintains a registry/ Thanks! - Nobo > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:54 PM > To: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf- > 07.txt > > Dear All, > minor updates and bringing this work back on track. > Your comments, questions and suggestions always welcome and greatly > appreciated. > > Regards, > Greg > > PS. RSVP-based companion doc been in the IESG queue been prepared for > AD to review. > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- > drafts@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:49 AM > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-07.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, Administration, and > Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using > LSP Ping > Authors : Elisa Bellagamba > Gregory Mirsky > Loa Andersson > Pontus Skoldstrom > Dave Ward > John Drake > Filename : draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-07.txt > Pages : 21 > Date : 2014-09-30 > > Abstract: > This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP > Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a > given LSP using a set of TLVs that are carried by the LSP-Ping > protocol. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam- > conf/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-07 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam- > conf-07 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-… internet-drafts
- [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-m… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-pi… Nobo Akiya (nobo)
- Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-pi… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-pi… Nobo Akiya (nobo)