Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Thu, 23 April 2015 11:16 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 221701B2D70 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 hqCUHAIlQymQ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0790.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::790]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEF241B2D5A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: pi.nu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
Received: from pc6 (81.151.162.168) by DB3PR07MB060.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.148.16; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:04:25 +0000
Message-ID: <033c01d07db5$0ecb4720$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
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> <CAFqGwGsq2hZOnQWpzZuwvqAnGvNdmkE3bUkxk6LS9NZ6VOf10Q@mail.gmail.com> <00f701d07a80$44770e00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAFqGwGuxK85W3anJ6omabHw+16HhUtSdw_yrsdt-weS1Z-abNw@mail.gmail.com> <55379EE5.8000801@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:02:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [81.151.162.168]
X-ClientProxiedBy: AM3PR03CA015.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.191.143) To DB3PR07MB060.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.151)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB3PR07MB060;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DB3PR07MB06039D11BA3FC516BF511DAA0ED0@DB3PR07MB060.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(252514010)(377424004)(24454002)(51444003)(13464003)(377454003)(51704005)(86362001)(93886004)(92566002)(77096005)(61296003)(62966003)(77156002)(46102003)(47776003)(66066001)(42186005)(1456003)(33646002)(50466002)(23676002)(50226001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(230783001)(44716002)(62236002)(40100003)(87976001)(50986999)(81816999)(81686999)(76176999)(84392001)(5001770100001)(74416001)(7059030)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB3PR07MB060; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:DB3PR07MB060; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB3PR07MB060;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0555EC8317
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Apr 2015 11:04:25.2767 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB3PR07MB060
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/YkkJKez2daaag8HIm9no9n5hdms>
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs@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: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:16:48 -0000
---- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:15 PM > Tom, > > On 2015-04-20 00:07, Nobo Akiya wrote: > > <tp> > > > > Yes but ... I think that it is a change of meaning. Is is enough just > > to ignore the TLV or should the whole PDU be discarded? I find it > > difficult to know but don't feel strongly about that choice so will go > > with what you suggest. > > > > </tp> > > So I don't misunderstand what you are saying. It seems to me like the > comments made by Adrian and you actually requires a "change of meaning", > that is kind of essence of a "cooment", right? > > As for what to do with if the TLV is not recognized, it is > intentionally requested from a space where it can be silently dropped > (i.e. "ignored"). > > The new TLV Type value should be assigned from the range > (32768-49161) specified in [RFC4379] section 3 that allows the TLV > type to be silently dropped if not recognized. > > Type Meaning Reference > ---- ------- --------- > TBD1 Reply Mode Order TLV this document > > What is it that I miss? Nothing serious. My initial thought was to echo Adrian, that, at least in this context, there should be an indication what to do if a MUST or SHOULD was violated without just then having a clear sense of what it should be instead. The I-D did require (MUST) one entry in the TLV and wanted (SHOULD) more. Adding what to do if that did not happen I was seeing as clarification. I then read Nobo as proposing going a bit further saying requires (MUST) one or more. Which might lead to boxes taking a simplistic approach and always putting in the new TLV with a single entry and ignoring the traditional TLV. Not a problem just a change from what others might think that they have consented to. On the question of what to do when the rules are violated, again I did not initially think of what the action should be. On reflection, I am still unsure. I understand that the Reply Mode Order TLV is optional and so can be ignored when not understood; that's fine. But if it is understood and can be seen to be defective, should the box with that knowledge discard just that TLV and accept the remainder of the message? Or should it argue that if this TLV is defective, then likely the rest is as well and should be ignored? I am unsure. If there is scope for a breach of security, or taking a hit in performance, then ignore is the right policy. If the requirement is to get as much data as possible from a failing network, then use it is the right policy. As long as the I-D is clear, I am not too fussed which way it goes. I am content with the changes that Nobo has proposed. Tom Petch > /Loa > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpl… Ross Callon
- Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf… Qin Wu
- [mpls] 答复: working group last call for draft-ietf… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf… Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)
- Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf… Qin Wu
- Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf… Faisal Iqbal (faiqbal)
- Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf… Nobo Akiya
- [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call f… Ross Callon
- Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last ca… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last ca… t.petch
- Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last ca… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last ca… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last ca… t.petch
- Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last ca… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last ca… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last ca… t.petch
- [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end of WG… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end o… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end o… Nobo Akiya
- Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end o… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end o… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end o… t.petch
- Re: [mpls] George can yu look at this - Re: end o… Nobo Akiya