Return-Path: 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 4AAA4120013; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:29:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 hdgJAwI83AD8; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:29:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 470D512002F; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:29:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id q10so4315078wrm.11; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 10:29:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Gug00eZzEIOuD23/hcuxgh+hIh3vi1tBy8iHg2SIjNg=; b=OLt5rWvVdpsc+3ViX1vruQGT/CMZSGs5WzAj8fiKFpHQFfCagT67GTq/LHGa1tOfaE TuWcf9N+CLSqLAI3VkCqu7Wd3QfbwojisuyVRu7aM4P7frDyVlT4ACuUenfqKYRS76Fn +kHClWq/Fw0iwFIZR9M5zhCSlV1mwsIIg4FOZWQ9d2no885g+yevk3hLnFPKH4mBst5X p5btCfmVVVPrQKvkp3vNJYZ8vNqQm2+Ng6139Go3rpWL39z/ggN7W1n9haZVxDzjj5WH 6FhLmV5Kr9wpyYGPJhRcvQDd9mHid6uaRA2k4dgDejZeI0paxBa/pNE4e9eVPRX9V+Y8 DDxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Gug00eZzEIOuD23/hcuxgh+hIh3vi1tBy8iHg2SIjNg=; b=RMAS6ocE5aJ0eV24cX3ASGhTddZwRv+BH1vPpCaRgr28W8CB0fD83hxW1eBr98kUGP Y73KdrmeEmRUcTbUXOL3kBNkP4jRYzxbdpq4lCxEP0QHitfcNU2YOd/55kpWO+t4lCkv WIFtNanovuei8hD+14I2NLVIDiVE/+nJ75OvXrAQV7o4tqcAFn6osNCSEk9f53+cDSRO OYYRXYcnAtSFqN8+qG1afkPJIpwZnePOxZFEFc45wXtwH9N6SV17EmA7gxuD5T2OmJBf Z9ZoCf94b88ojXonLKcm8dnZ0VN6mD3ZB/ZAUEVxcuFwCKjMSF1/GA+ukau0V4Kc/UUI 1Qug== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWIhXa4ARji4c7CvJiC5FA2NbBD9H76TLofX5X88XOTj26oTYdF wl1yHlCdAOisTKp7w2XqJHM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz4QTB3qH4oHIRs5FdxhZCF/cALwRWI+clrqNKWJtjPpFE0v+Ueu5CB3uvMQAbkWJgMAWew0w== X-Received: by 2002:adf:b193:: with SMTP id q19mr89268713wra.78.1578076148785; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 10:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadband.bt.com ([2a00:23a8:4140:0:3894:cb5f:d37a:1d9c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s15sm62076636wrp.4.2020.01.03.10.29.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Jan 2020 10:29:08 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Bryant Message-Id: <180BB750-CFD0-4BFE-99CD-4EB095262276@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_51FC5758-A0B9-4667-8730-463972257B8B" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\)) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 18:29:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: Cc: "Andrew G. Malis" , "draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control@ietf.org" , mpls-chairs , mpls To: Zhenghaomian References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10) Archived-At: Subject: [mpls] draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control - Control Response Codes X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org 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: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 18:29:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_51FC5758-A0B9-4667-8730-463972257B8B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On 3 Jan 2020, at 02:44, Zhenghaomian wrote: >=20 >=20 > =20 > 5. section 3.1 SFL Control Message > Regarding the 'Control Code', do we allocate specific value for the = query/response actions? For example, we can have request (control code =3D= 0), refresh (control code =3D 1) and withdraw (control code =3D2) for a = query. Currently there is no such allocations. Thanks for picking this up. It is quite significant since without these = values you cannot implement the protocol. I brushed over this about five years ago when I quickly pulled the first = draft together and so far no one (including the authors) noticed. The = implications is that no one has implemented the protocol. Obviously I = think it will work, but you cannot be sure with a signalling protocol, = and as the WG knows I have been a bit nervous on that point. I wonder if = we should downgrade it from PS to Experimental? The codes need to go into a registry and we have two choices, we create = a new registry for it or we recognise the string ties to RFC6374 and add = the values to its registry (presumably updating the RFC and renaming the = registry). It is tempting to put the values into RFC6374 because of the strong = heritage but I made a mistake like that before with the ACH code points = and it caused all sorts of problems, so I will clone the RFC 6374 IANA = text and use it to create a new registry. However it makes me wonder if = we should be trying to get some commonality in the ACH In doing that I note that we originally proposed 0x60. I think we meant = the next one after 0x59 which is 0x5A, so unless anyone objects I = suggest we request 0x5A rather than leave the gap in the registry. I will compile and upload the latest version, but need to take a much = loser look at the error codes and I think we can do a better job than I = have done so far. This will need at least one more revision, but so long as it is on track = the chairs could adopt it and allow it to proceed under WG control. Best regards Stewart --Apple-Mail=_51FC5758-A0B9-4667-8730-463972257B8B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On 3 Jan 2020, at 02:44, Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com> wrote:


 
5. section 3.1 = SFL Control Message
Regarding the 'Control Code', do we allocate specific value = for the query/response actions? For example, we can have request = (control code =3D 0), refresh (control code =3D 1) and withdraw (control = code =3D2) for a query. Currently there is no such allocations.

Thanks for picking this up. It is quite = significant since without these values you cannot implement the = protocol.

I = brushed over this about five years ago when I quickly pulled the first = draft together and so far no one (including the authors) noticed. The = implications is that no one has implemented the protocol. Obviously I = think it will work, but you cannot be sure with a signalling protocol, = and as the WG knows I have been a bit nervous on that point. I wonder if = we should downgrade it from PS to Experimental?

The codes need to go into a registry = and we have two choices, we create a new registry for it or we recognise = the string ties to RFC6374 and add the values to its registry = (presumably updating the RFC and renaming the registry).

It is tempting to put = the values into RFC6374 because of the strong heritage but I made a = mistake like that before with the ACH code points and it caused all = sorts of problems, so I will clone the RFC 6374 IANA text and use it to = create a new registry. However it makes me wonder if we should be trying = to get some commonality in the ACH

In doing that I note that we originally = proposed 0x60. I think we meant the next one after 0x59 which is 0x5A, = so unless anyone objects I suggest we request 0x5A rather than leave the = gap in the registry.

I will compile and upload the latest version, but need to = take a much loser look at the error codes and I think we can do a better = job than I have done so far.

This will need at least one more = revision, but so long as it is on track the chairs could adopt it and = allow it to proceed under WG control.

Best regards

Stewart


= --Apple-Mail=_51FC5758-A0B9-4667-8730-463972257B8B--