Re: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-08.txt

Hello Greg,

Thanks for very quick reply!

Please see in-line.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:34 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-
> conf-08.txt
> 
> Hi Nobo,
> many thanks for your always thoughtful comments.
> There will be new updates to RSVP-TE document and if we, as community,
> decide that the particular aspect must be update, we'll take care of that in
> both documents.

Sounds good.

> As for the case of Authentication sub-TLV, we may just need to hint that
> Reserved field MAY be of variable length, not just 16 bits long. Thus, new
> Auth Type would have to define its sub-TLV format.

Or add Auth Key ID Length field and let Auth Ken ID field size be variable?

Thanks!

-Nobo

> 
> 	Regards,
> 		Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nobo Akiya (nobo) [mailto:nobo@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:07 PM
> To: Gregory Mirsky; mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [mpls] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-
> conf-08.txt
> 
> Hello Greg,
> 
> Thanks for incorporating my comments, and I've verified that all my
> comments are addressed in the updated document.
> 
> I did come across one more thing that's worth being raised.
> 
> 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)         |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> Yes it's true that RFC5880 defined all the "Auth Key ID" to be 8 bits. Newer
> BFD authentication documents, like draft-ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth
> (expired), attempted to increase the "Auth Key ID" field to be 16 bits. I am
> no security expert, but I would guess someone out there thought 255 keys
> isn't sufficient.
> 
> One approach is to say that current definition is ok since it covers RFC5880.
> Another approach is to add a text stating that the length of the Auth Key ID
> field depends on the value of the Auth Type field ... or something
> equivalent to be forward compatible.
> 
> Now, I do realize the above comment is also applicable to the companion
> document draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext. And you already had
> to jump through hoops to apply some changes to that recently. If the door is
> already closed (or too much hassle to get things in the door), then perhaps
> moving forward as is the path that makes most sense.
> 
> My primary intent is to raise this so that folks are aware when somebody
> defines BFD authentication key ID field > 8 bits :)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Nobo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 7:25 PM
> > To: mpls@ietf.org
> > Subject: [mpls] FW: I-D Action:
> > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-
> > 08.txt
> >
> > Dear All,
> > this update addresses comments we received from Nobo.  Also it
> > reflects work authors done with  sister document
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp- oam-ext addressing AD and GEN-Art
> review comments.
> >
> > Your comments, questions and suggestions always welcome and greatly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > 	Regards,
> > 		Greg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-
> > drafts@ietf.org
> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 4:18 PM
> > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> > Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> > Subject: [mpls] I-D Action:
> > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-08.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-08.txt
> > 	Pages           : 25
> > 	Date            : 2015-01-11
> >
> > 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-0
> > 8
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-
> > conf-08
> >
> >
> > 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