Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <> Sun, 27 September 2015 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAC01B2F5E for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afh1rs5lggR3 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09A441B2F5D for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6452; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1443391094; x=1444600694; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Wj0Gpq3JwsvEkBBw1O+yHSaHVGo9AmAOVF1BIJ2b5hI=; b=FvZYYvzzzWYviDiLiDF/Ww8inldQlFP2LgKBMsmnQmJtygELnkFqjfSD xpT9Kxw7AliyOwsiiPldtgbp1Ft2P67uMBmwSrMJpp8Q01gE8zMqnnEOn 5u8a6/cGejRXrm2rQE+Y9ZuGQABw0hKXNA585z8Yfu1Mob9PH8GXm6NXm I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,599,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="30532422"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2015 21:58:13 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8RLwCgO028607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:58:12 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:58:12 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:58:12 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <>
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQ+J1EezMJM5/jz06jWlnnqPjDi55P3RWYgAEQ5es=
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:58:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Nagendra Kumar Nainar \(naikumar\)" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt
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: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:58:16 -0000

Hi Sasha,

Thanks for asking!

If you don't mind, let me start with some context: the idea of 4379bis has been there for some time, but the catalysts for this work was a comment made by an AD (I believe it was Alia) in a Rtg-chairs (or Rtg-Dir) meeting in Prague: to push (WGs to push) specs up maturity levels as it made sense. 

With that context, we are diving this work in a few steps:
1. Get the source from the Rfc Editor, convert it to XML, clean up glitches. This will give us a baseline to work from. 
2. Integrate errata and similar fixes, in chunks (make it new revision addressing one specific item or area)
3. Discuss which RFCs updating 4379 make sense to integrate in (trying to maximize the RFCs integrated into the bus)

We are now in between 1 and 2. Ready to start engaging the WG more actively and with a goal of something for Japan. 


Thinking about this, it would make sense to get this under the pen of the WG earlier rather than later -- when should this be called for adoption?


Please find more thoughts inline. 

Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows

> On Sep 27, 2015, at 02:12, Alexander Vainshtein <> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have a comment regarding draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.
> According to the draft, its purpose is "take LSP Ping to an Internet  Standard". As part of this work the authors address all the outstanding Errata to the original RFC 4379, and update the references.
> I fully agree with the goal that the authors have set to themselves.

Thanks! Although to be fair, chairs drove setting that goal for the WG. 

> However, I have noticed that there is quite a long list of RFCs  that update RFC 4379, and it would be nice to understand whether these updates have been incorporated or not.

Well, they have not been incorporated now, because we are at the point of mirroring 4379 + errata.

The plan is for the WG to discuss which ones make sense to incorporate. 

> Specifically:
> 1.  RFC 6424 states that it "deprecates the Downstream Mapping TLV in favor of a new TLV". 
> 2. RFC 6426 extends applicability of LSP Ping to MPLS-TP thus introducing new  address types and new TLVs
> 3. RFC 6289  extends LSP Ping to PWs signaled with LDP sessions running on top of IPv6 and introduces new sub-TLVs
> 4. RFC  7506 clarifies the use of IPv6 Router Alert option for LSP Ping.
> 5. RFC  7537 has introduced new IANA  registries for various aspects of LSP Ping.

Let me answer with a question: what do you think? Which ones should be incorporated?

I have my views (as many as possible as it makes sense), but we should discuss this openly as a WG. 

> Neither of these RFCs is mentioned anywhere in draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.  

Right. We are not there. We would not incorporate these without having the WG discussion first, which you initiated on our behalf. So, which ones should the final work mention?

> Does this mean that if/when the draft is published as an RFC, all the  documents  updating RFC 4379 would equally update a new RFC?

Of course not. It means this doc is not ready to be published as an RFC. 

> And what would happen to all the TLVs, sub-TLVs and procedures that are defined in these documents?
> I honestly do not know what is the right way to proceed here, but I think that silence is definitely not the best way to address the problem.


Let's walk before we run, let's crawl before we walk...

As I mentioned (in this email and in a separate note to the WG), we are now getting a baseline to be able to have that discussion. 

It would be much messier to talk "on the air" without a document to capture the outcome of the discussion on. 

Do you suggest we break silence and have a discussion on the list, without a document to update?

I think you can understand the timing chosen. And of course we more than welcome your help and contributions and hear your suggestions if there is a better approach. 


> My 2c,
> Sasha 
> ________________________________________
> From: I-D-Announce <> on behalf of <>
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:52 PM
> To:
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>        Title           : Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures
>        Authors         : Carlos Pignataro
>                          Nagendra Kumar
>                          Sam Aldrin
>                          Mach(Guoyi) Chen
>        Filename        : draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt
>        Pages           : 49
>        Date            : 2015-09-26
> Abstract:
>   This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism that can be
>   used to detect data plane failures in Multi-Protocol Label Switching
>   (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  There are two parts to this
>   document: information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo
>   reply" for the purposes of fault detection and isolation, and
>   mechanisms for reliably sending the echo reply.
>   This document obsoletes RFC 4379.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> Internet-Draft directories:
> or