Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-03
Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com> Wed, 23 May 2018 10:13 UTC
Return-Path: <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.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 A769112DA22; Wed, 23 May 2018 03:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=metaswitch.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 Kt-Af1wHvL5f; Wed, 23 May 2018 03:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0119.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D0F4126C89; Wed, 23 May 2018 03:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=metaswitch.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=kR/fkNlnm+9cfdaVJ8FdJAzIEzvCvjdwVUrBp9jsx5s=; b=i0U+KAnYvcN17rOvpe9Bs+kNckkyGP1R+IY6mvXtSMt2bpwl1g3nuRzB5sP6OhHYTS/LKLSc6HBIVJXu8jUKtU6norvgNZnLe98fZVSSxvkRpNWCdR031Pklfpq5fciJUAoCWLwzRhOONYt3HNxET5iYdIXkjnq4i3NMHh+CPYU=
Received: from CY1PR0201MB1436.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.163.139.143) by CY1PR0201MB1067.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.161.214.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.776.11; Wed, 23 May 2018 10:13:53 +0000
Received: from CY1PR0201MB1436.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::20a5:b19e:ce54:c923]) by CY1PR0201MB1436.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::20a5:b19e:ce54:c923%14]) with mapi id 15.20.0776.015; Wed, 23 May 2018 10:13:53 +0000
From: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-03
Thread-Index: AdPxHComHzVKTJV6QRCxYZYkPv0ozABWLVLQAAJpa6A=
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 10:13:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR0201MB14369CB92C26D97E974221A3846B0@CY1PR0201MB1436.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CY1PR0201MB1436F9BFD9BA41F921B2C4C084950@CY1PR0201MB1436.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29243FBDF@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29243FBDF@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com;
x-originating-ip: [86.137.6.168]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR0201MB1067; 7:vak/7HfI2NwGJ8nCLQ5425xeNR9E0DxczrWR0B9wJc3D4LcnML3KMCKq2S9mZtAFJ0Y375ptAhQqB5DYo5921cD01OkFJvnVkJ1tSiIKkJDRa9pUNq2bZtOqEiXEnZA+01P7ktQQM3m8hUeIOxWL0Xf4BulQSsLpOMqvQi2VWiYBeI3v7lewLgL7NBQNb0Lwg60Btnx6YGazhCuhfwyYaOgUE1nv6jbI/jiEym3PjCZX7Cdj0KIGiJevGBGYmq1C
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:CY1PR0201MB1067;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY1PR0201MB1067:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR0201MB106736566FE46C4C5B4EFA72846B0@CY1PR0201MB1067.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(50582790962513);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(93006095)(93001095)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:CY1PR0201MB1067; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR0201MB1067;
x-forefront-prvs: 06818431B9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(39380400002)(366004)(396003)(39850400004)(346002)(51914003)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(2201001)(966005)(102836004)(3280700002)(99286004)(33656002)(7736002)(305945005)(53936002)(316002)(2501003)(74316002)(6116002)(3846002)(6246003)(66066001)(5250100002)(11346002)(86362001)(8676002)(446003)(7696005)(486006)(59450400001)(81166006)(26005)(81156014)(76176011)(186003)(5660300001)(2906002)(14454004)(8936002)(3660700001)(476003)(68736007)(72206003)(6436002)(478600001)(1720100001)(229853002)(6506007)(97736004)(53546011)(2900100001)(4326008)(105586002)(25786009)(9686003)(6306002)(110136005)(55016002)(106356001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0201MB1067; H:CY1PR0201MB1436.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: metaswitch.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: YlZoEgvRp7bYT0VSnaOxUv+jDPDTlhNs9fnRxWOtDGbTYH5mdmeloPGfMuIgc5yjXzFYSQg/Z/KEvAr9ftL1QaECHmcVWrCmtzzJtCmiRKvniNWkoiUTzZKbB6zhmTe+JOjBm9ktUjvQIqHG3pLCzYyYQxOwTukQB9e3h9VHCs5r4NGOQCMsUyKEwnvLYyGO
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 1ea9a0ff-b058-4102-94e8-08d5c095e314
X-OriginatorOrg: metaswitch.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1ea9a0ff-b058-4102-94e8-08d5c095e314
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 May 2018 10:13:53.4292 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9d9e56eb-f613-4ddb-b27b-bfcdf14b2cdb
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0201MB1067
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_6nI4rqIQGrEgL1UqhFl7CMwv7A>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-03
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 23 May 2018 10:13:59 -0000
Thanks Mach. Your proposed markups all look good to me. Cheers Jon -----Original Message----- From: Mach Chen [mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com] Sent: 23 May 2018 11:04 To: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: RE: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-03 Hi Jon, Thanks for the detailed review and useful comments! Please see some responses inline... > From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:39 AM > To: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; > mpls- chairs@ietf.org > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org > Subject: Routing directorate review of > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-03 > > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipat > h/ > > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, > perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for > publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any > time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The > purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has > reached. As this document is close to working group last call, my > focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to > be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Best regards > Jon > > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-03.txt > Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick > Review Date: 21 May 2018 > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary > This document looks ready for working group last call. I have a few > minor issues that I am sure can be resolved during the last call. > > > Section 2 > First paragraph: the reference to section 3.3 of [RFC8029] looks > wrong. Should it be a reference to section 4? It was intended to refer to Section 3.3 RFC4079 (Downstream Mapping). How about the following text: "Reader is expected to be familiar with mechanics of Downstream Mapping described in Section 3.3 of RFC8029 and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (DDMAP) described in Section 3.4 of RFC8029." > > Section 3 > “When the responder LSR receives an MPLS echo reply message” <- you > mean “MPLS echo request message”. Yes. > > Section 5.1 > This is fine, but I found it a bit cumbersome to read. How about this rewording? > NEW > If the downstream LSR does not return Remote Interface Index sub-TLVs in > the DDMAP, then the initiator LSR validates LAG member link traversal by > traversing all available LAG member links and then using the > procedure described > below. This section provides the mechanism for the initiator LSR to > obtain additional information from the downstream LSRs and describes > the additional logic in the initiator LSR to validate the L2 ECMP traversal. > END This looks good to me, thanks for the new text! > > Section 5.1.3 > For my interest, why are you using “entropy” here? It sounds like you > mean “probability”, but I might have misunderstood your meaning. The "entropy" is used to select specific LAG member link, it has the similar concept as "entropy label". > > Top of page 13: > The initiator LSR sends two MPLS echo request messages to traverse > the two LAG members at TTL=1: > “TTL=1” should be “TTL=n”. Good catch, fixed. > > Section 6 > Typo “in the in the” Fixed. > > Section 8 and 9 > This draft only discusses using the new Local & Remote Interface Index > Sub- TLVs in the context of a DDMAP for a LAG interface, so I was > surprised to read that it is permissible to set M=0 in these TLVs. > You should describe how the TLV is used in that case, if you are going to allow it. > Does the M flag need to be set consistently in all Local & Remote > Interface Index Sub-TLVs in a given DDMAP TLV? > In fact, isn’t the M flag redundant, given that the enclosing DDMAP > has the "LAG Description Indicator flag"? Indeed, seems redundant, I will do double check on it. > > Section 10 > Why do you need the Sub-TLV length field? It can be inferred from the > TLV length and the address type. Indeed, and I personally agree, I will talk to the co-authors, if there is no further reasons, will remove the sub-TLV length field. > Section 10.1.1 – if the LSR received no labels (e.g. PHP case) then > should it omit this sub-TLV, or include an empty sub-TLV? The sub-TLV is derived from Label Stack Sub-TLV defined in 8029, it has the same usage as Label Stack Sub-TLV. So, for that case, the sub-TLV should be included and an Implicit Null label returned. > > Other nits > Throughout, English grammar needs to be fine-tuned e.g. there are > definite and indefinite articles missing. However, I found the > document perfectly readable, so perhaps this can be left for the RFC editor. Sure, thanks. Best regards, Mach
- [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-m… Jonathan Hardwick
- Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ie… Mach Chen
- Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ie… Jonathan Hardwick
- Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ie… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ie… Mach Chen