Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01

Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com> Sat, 18 April 2015 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.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 861611A8EA9 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 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, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 FEKGT9Zz-zdp for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DFFF1A901C for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by laat2 with SMTP id t2so100595320laa.1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=q9RsEMmdulDWdtL/CVFMPPF4LG4+QxGzwwexMGCOYaY=; b=ny25xCXDGVWB/ShS5pivHENvv7oIEoMjpRhesAcZPGR2E6xorKp7Dn+juYUVW85u/o JWI9c8cNhonsR22haV6E8VbKqWxrli3gffk0qcWXBp4c+i/AJ/8FY4Gb17sM/abw5JXb ZGjLrDFc6y8KHf1o4IV0nCBuqiwaHiF5WA2k25Y1gPKxp0T1JY668tCSUbLpBl7TofV3 gs5RJI3/zXZkk/MJ8+OpFZp5SN7PUWqzDYyi76oclzFrh2Hn2L+bdeswutLFvB62egsn P949gC3VAfakTpayVRjMZAsZtL17iz08G2umQ763myD4h1mpGWsybO6N/+xzMKZU4/4z tOpA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.156.97 with SMTP id wd1mr1886463lbb.30.1429377808873; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.154.168 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001901d0786b$0c1ceb40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <BY1PR0501MB14303A3E86F750CF628B7234A50E0@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BY1PR0501MB143031F1768A8854BA4CB30EA5E70@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAFqGwGuKaR-pRiCS9hnzD0mGmY1dRWd2LANgaBf4MJdT+MYRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <001901d0786b$0c1ceb40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:23:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFqGwGsq2hZOnQWpzZuwvqAnGvNdmkE3bUkxk6LS9NZ6VOf10Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0112cc808c3eb6051402f409"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/XCHwE9gwNLTtn5n3YKZkJEz95lM>
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
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: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:23:55 -0000

Hi Tom,

Although we have added this text after the list/bullet items in section 3.2:

   If a responder LSR receives a Reply Mode Order TLV which does not
   comply to the rules described above, then the responder LSR MUST
   ignore the Reply Mode Order TLV.


You are right, it doesn't cover the case where a receiver (the
initiator LSR) receives an MPLS echo reply with a Reply Mode Order
TLV. Perhaps above text should be changed to:


   If an LSR receives a Reply Mode Order TLV which does not
   comply to the rules described above, then the LSR MUST
   ignore the Reply Mode Order TLV.


Will that address your first comment?


Regarding your second comment (3.2-6), is that really too ambiguous?
To me, that text translates to following implementations:

- When sending a Reply Mode Order TLV, 2 or more Reply Mode values
shall be present.

- When receiving a Reply Mode Order TLV, accept 1 or more Reply Mode values.


If you think the text really should be updated, then we can change (3.2-6):


[OLD]

   6.  Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode value,
       and SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values.


[NEW]

   6.  Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode value.


Thoughts?


Thanks!


-Nobo


On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:30 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Nobo
>
> I was struck by Adrian's comment which, if I understand correctly, was
> what to do if a MUST or SHOULD is violated and as I see it, I am unclear
> if this was addressed.
>
> Thus 3.2 2) what should a recipient do when the echo reply does contain
> a Reply Mode Order TLV ?
>
> Or in 6), 'SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values' - when may
> that SHOULD be violated and if it is, does that render the TLV not valid
> as described in 4?
>
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nobo Akiya" <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
> To: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>
> Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>; <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>;
> <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
>
>
> > Hi Ross,
> >
> > Thank you for Shepherding this document.
> >
> > We (authors) have posted the revision (-02) addressing all comments
> > received during the LC of this document (thanks to those who provided
> > comments!).
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Nobo, on behalf of authors
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > >  This working group last call has ended, with sufficient support and
> no
> > > opposition. There have however been a number of comments received.
> Thanks
> > > to everyone who took the time to review the draft and comment.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Authors, please update the draft in response to the comments. After
> this
> > > is done, I will submit the document for publication.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Ross
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ross
> Callon
> > > *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 10:04 AM
> > > *To:* mpls@ietf.org
> > > *Cc:* Loa Andersson; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> > > *Subject:* [mpls] working group last call for
> > > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Working Group,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is to initiate a working group last call on
> > > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01.
> > >
> > > Because this WGLC will span the IETF in Dallas, it will be extended
> to
> > > three weeks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list
> (mpls@ietf.org).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are no IPR disclosures against this document. All the authors
> have
> > > stated that they
> > >
> > > are not aware of any IPR that relates to this draft.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This working group last call ends Friday  April 10, 2015.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > > for the MPLS WG chairs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
>
>