Re: [mpls] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-03

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Tue, 12 March 2019 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3151312FA; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5FZr6KjFexCS; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF1B131159; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v3so979947ljk.9; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3fN8g/81tBJGPSpxERRfmvpSku9ZGusLi1sfgm8qFiE=; b=K7ZP6uPXUys9wUjkUPUqQTi6WyVD1092kkwdjd+Kd8iXIpn7OmXoGXMu7TK5201gx1 ZKl9vXcnMNcEhbc6OHffOg29TMgtsywQ4SCPSnjPweGjSuz8RICfbTm8daDL+jNMkaD+ 1F3d78kitHeDBpv+1NDxbQKUcfJymZOXEiRQSnXPuYj+kP690H9oIzm+xcb0rZglSmki mmPcsd109InImMH7/Ny9Ye1/NE3ptcUSxB9eHNj2LyZdT8WImUAx3MR/iTSf7bz1yi8c raWwW8u6ucDLazA2JP29mDeHtZwhn3kwTV60biEjp0mbxDvkCrODMunY5t8JLA6EDGs1 /qhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3fN8g/81tBJGPSpxERRfmvpSku9ZGusLi1sfgm8qFiE=; b=r19Hsgv5KxrHeUCF+Zkse6rysqFAampLsIPTgq3OLNPiKii+a7R5O65tIDXDbZp3Mn oHRjJlkJctyrLSGQ86NTVxNltvAnnOCAgtPIX3ZEiokXVQJdENwz0xuPLG91BS+ecEQJ nm6qIJ1Ml/1ixYEm3W9faxN/+vX+lEtgY+zj8dEyQy4bPFyJ/7IGC53glXcOyS6JcSiJ AdoPgV1aQmRIA65mJOWSEavWHSXETkX77+rC8h2oZNEyyGWyTb3Rwl2XAQQGP7smprM/ uUC7VfnhprdUJ9u6lefaHxVr5IV0ov5PD4ur5hPnKuqqh1NClx/ZjIXRGIU6XAjIF60S B1Fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVMmokEfe9AhYcOOBg/tMLoqTyLR0ZVOI5YXaPeDoeYrWPSZmPE snxdQn49UnENj/XFFzcoEGmzrcODTYZ+mfzmy7o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwd2b8jNEtraAjk+L//7JAcg+cKM5YbsYYdFnl4jdTOHpfKzqyutqP5xQnMIYOlSSkNYkFgocIZ9ma+hGxnaZk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9204:: with SMTP id k4mr16428959ljg.0.1552419730781; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <020a01d4d39b$4e92c460$ebb84d20$>
In-Reply-To: <020a01d4d39b$4e92c460$ebb84d20$>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:41:57 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Adrian Farrel <>
Cc: Datatracker on behalf of Martin Stiemerling <>,,, IETF list <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000987bce0583eae2bd"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 19:42:15 -0000

Hi, Adrian,

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:35 PM Adrian Farrel <> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> Good to hear from you.
> > I have only one request: From a Transport Area perspective,
> > it would be good to emphasize RFC 7510 and its details about
> > MPLS over UDP.
> Happy to accommodate this request.
> But what do you have in mind?
> There are references to 7510, in the Introduction and in the first two use
> cases in Section 2.
> Then, the packet forwarding procedures in Section 3.2 begin with a
> reference to 7510 as well.
> And there a couple more references in the document.
> Thanks,
> Adrian

I haven't seen a response back from Martin, and this doc is on the agenda
in a couple of days, so I'll try to read Martin's mind, and you can both
tell me what I'm getting wrong. So can everyone else, of course ...

The character string "7510" does appear in a bunch of places in this draft,
but what I'm not seeing is a statement of whether the congestion control
considerations in Section 5 of RFC 7510 do, or do not, apply to MPLS-SR
over UDP, as with MPLS over UDP. That might be obvious to MPLS-SR types,
and it might be especially obvious to you, because you were author for this
draft and responsible AD for RFC 7510 until after it entered the RFC Editor
queue, but I wonder if it might be useful to Those Less Skilled In The Art.

I'll ballot No Objection/still discussing TSV-ART review with author, and
you can reply here, or there, as seems appropriate.

Make good choices, of course ;-)