IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Poll for WG adoption for draft-pac-mpls-lsp-ping-tlvs-and-sub-tlvs-registry-02

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 16 May 2013 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C63921F91CB for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r0nJp1YOqhYC for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AE421F901B for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6595; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368721262; x=1369930862; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=J7zWMpwnx1aRaVvUl/wCFlTPZ3woSMwEJJfGWEMERuw=; b=DfDMw3Q5tDHSpveSbiFgrTEIgg94ltPi0qiE5iPXdTYP/64kAenwiIfV ZfQXasfm3DGMc3K/2xxsxXg8bzE2i4Y/Momz7yMdfgUkBoyRQou1NOPIm c0UHoq+C/RURZjXD+FijqkflQgyewjJ8K513deIFrJb4YzPqlP1P/FjDG 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAC4GlVGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABbgkNEN4YduUWBZX0WdIIgAQEEAQEBawsQAgEIDhQdBycLFBEBAQQOBQgBiAMMvQaObi0EB4J0YQOoeIE0JIE4giY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,684,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="211324259"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2013 16:21:01 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4GGL1W9021852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 May 2013 16:21:01 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.192]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 16 May 2013 11:21:01 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Poll for WG adoption for draft-pac-mpls-lsp-ping-tlvs-and-sub-tlvs-registry-02
Thread-Index: Ac5KBNrRqy5GgTuxR1iRJSatXBuqdwIdmhAA
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:21:00 +0000
Message-ID: <95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED322B582FB@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <62CCD4C52ACDAD4481149BD5D8A72FD316C3ED09@CH1PRD0510MB355.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <62CCD4C52ACDAD4481149BD5D8A72FD316C3ED09@CH1PRD0510MB355.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.102.157.229]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED322B582FBxmbalnx02ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-pac-mpls-lsp-ping-tlvs-and-sub-tlvs-registry@tools.ietf.org" <draft-pac-mpls-lsp-ping-tlvs-and-sub-tlvs-registry@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll for WG adoption for draft-pac-mpls-lsp-ping-tlvs-and-sub-tlvs-registry-02
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 16 May 2013 16:21:07 -0000

I do not support adoption of this document.

I believe that coalescing the sub-TLVs into a single space is harmful on a number of areas; here's some of the main implications:

  *   Bugs about applicability of sub-TLVs -- all of a sudden there would be no clarity as to what sub-TLVs are applicable -- or not -- to each TLV.
  *   Context lost -- the context of a sub-TLV is, by definition, subordinate to the TLV. This is in meaning, and presence.
  *   It already cannot work -- because the TLV Type 9 already has specific definition for its use of sub-TLVs, it would not be a single space; it would start with exceptions already.
  *   Backwards compatibility -- existing implementations that follow RFC 4379 treat sub-TLVs as subordinates such that the "meaning of a sub-TLV is scoped by the TLV". This creates parsing bugs.
  *   The concept of subordinate spaces has worked for LSP Ping as well as for many protocols, all the way to ICMP types and codes http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-parameters.xml

If there is a need to synchronize the sub-TLVs of two or more specific TLVs, that can be codified without changing the whole structure of the registry (for example, by saying "TLV-foo uses the same sub-TLVs from TLV-bar). Frankly, http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#mpls-lsp-ping-parameters-7 seems pretty clear to me. I would not let the corner case dictate the overall structure.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On May 5, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net<mailto:rcallon@juniper.net>> wrote:

Working group,

this is to start a "two week" poll on adopting
draft-pac-mpls-lsp-ping-tlvs-and-sub-tlvs-registry-02
as an MPLS working group document.

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>).

This poll will end May 20th, 2013.

Ross
(as mpls wg co-chair)


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email