[mpls] Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-14

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Mon, 26 August 2024 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 87CC8C15155C; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 01:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lc-QrHinKmfh; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 01:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E50DEC15152B; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 01:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4Wsl2C6KGbz8RV7W; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:58:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app04.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.64]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 47Q8w2PG075236; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:58:02 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app06[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:58:05 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:58:05 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afe66cc439d560-a59c5
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20240826165805718n_xd6I1X5mpTFwHekDqjo@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: dceccare@cisco.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 47Q8w2PG075236
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 66CC43A3.005/4Wsl2C6KGbz8RV7W
Message-ID-Hash: CM3HPNYPCUWJAAEWHGTBCGTBIN7PJ6R3
X-Message-ID-Hash: CM3HPNYPCUWJAAEWHGTBCGTBIN7PJ6R3
X-MailFrom: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [mpls] Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-14
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/alqSpfhJX5U7_row2uOffXSwrNI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mpls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mpls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Daniele,
Thanks for your review and thoughtful comments.
Please see inline.

Original


From: DanieleCeccarelliviaDatatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org <ops-dir@ietf.org>;
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.all@ietf.org>;last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>;mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年08月23日 20:34
Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-14

Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review result: Has Issues
 
General comments:
The intro says: "Considering the MPLS performance measurement with the
Alternate-Marking method can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation, it is
agreed that this document will be made Historic once the MNA solution of
performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking method is published as an
RFC." The first reaction to this statement is: how long will it take for the
MNA encapsulation to be delivered? If we already know that this will be
obsoleted by the MNA encapsulation, is it worth publishing it?
 [XM]>>> At the request of the MPLS WG chairs, the text you quoted was added to version -11 of this document. After that, this document passed WGLC and there was unanimous consensus to publish it as an RFC. Considering there are existing interoperable implementations of this document, while the MNA solution of performance measurement with alternate marking method is still at the early stage without WG draft and known implementation, it's worth publishing this document.


Detailed comments below:
- Section 3: I was expecting a bit of intro/explanation here. The section
starts saying that the encapsulation has this format. Boom. Is it something
that already exists? If so where has it been defined? If not could we say
something like" this document defines a new encapsulation as shown in figure
below..." 
[XM]>>> That's defined in this document first. Propose to change the text as below.
OLD
Flow-based MPLS performance measurement encapsulation with alternate marking method has the following format:
NEW
This document defines the Flow-based MPLS performance measurement encapsulation with alternate marking method, as shown in figure below.

- Section 3 suggest rephrasing. 
OLD

 The Traffic Class (TC) and Time To Live (TTL) [RFC3032] for the XL
   and FLI MUST use the same field values as the label immediately
   preceding the XL. unless it is known that the XL will not be exposed
   as the top label at any point along the LSP.
NEW
 The Traffic Class (TC) and Time To Live (TTL) fields of the XL
   and FLI MUST use the same values of the label immediately
   preceding the XL, unless it is known that the XL will not be exposed
   as the top label at any point along the LSP.
Is the "unless..." really necessary? Can't this be always the case?
[XM]>>> Yes, this can always be the case. Will use the text you suggested and delete the "unless...".

- Section 3: "The BoS bit for the FL

   depends on whether the FL is placed at the bottom of the MPLS label
   stack, i.e., the BoS bit for the FL is set only when the FL is placed
   at the bottom of the MPLS label stack.
Isn't this always the case?
[XM]>>> No, Figure 2 provides an example the FL is not placed at the bottom of the MPLS label stack.


- Section 3: To achieve the purpose
   of coloring the MPLS traffic, and to distinguish between hop-by-hop
   measurement and edge-to-edge measurement, the TC for the FL is
   defined as follows:
The TC is a single field 3 bits long and here it's used as 3 independent flags.
I'm not sure if this is possible, but if it is it must at least be explained. 
[XM]>>> This is possible and it's already been implemented. Propose to add below new text to the end of the TC definition.
NEW
Considering the FL is not used as a forwarding label, the repurposing of the TC for the FL is feasible and viable.

- Examples section highly appreciated 
- Section 4,5 and 6 clear
[XM]>>> Thank you.

Cheers,
Xiao Min