Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> Tue, 21 May 2013 16:12 UTC
Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.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 C60CE21F9869 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 c1VJ2u220FOz for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29B321F9860 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 09:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fb56d0000042e1-58-519b9ccbe7d3
Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 56.8F.17121.BCC9B915; Tue, 21 May 2013 18:11:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 21 May 2013 12:11:53 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
To: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>, David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
Thread-Index: Ac5IG1yAbZhW1zCyQtKJoj7oW461UgACNQsQARrVc5AA4QRRQAF5nPeQABDx9AA=
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:11:52 +0000
Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B49D295@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8C004@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk> <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C097D0A@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8CD51@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk> <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C09B253@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A901F6@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A901F6@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B49D295eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuO6ZObMDDeafZLR4Mm0Wm8WtpStZ HZg8liz5yeRx9OZc5gCmKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6Mjq5mpoLJ2xgrLnUXNjBuncfYxcjJISFg IrHwzn0WCFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgJHGSWOv1zJCpIQEljOKPH3iiiIzSZgJPFiYw87iC0iECEx beMzpi5GDg5mAWWJU3dlQExhAS2J57NKICq0JXZM7WGCsP0k5v89xghSwiKgKnFifTZImFfA V6LpzBImiK13mCRaG9axgSQ4Bfwlti2ZBXYmI9Bp30+tAZvDLCAucevJfCaIkwUkluw5zwxh i0q8fPyPFcJWlljyZD8LxGX5Esf3uUPsEpQ4OfMJywRG0VlIJs1CqJqFpAqiREdiwe5PbBC2 tsSyha+ZYewzBx4zIYsvYGRfxchRWpxalptuZLCJERhPxyTYdHcw7nlpeYhRmoNFSZy3VXtq oJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQbGsKk+pS/4F03i+3YvznTqCkEL6dX9oZtP64Z6 RPC9dNRnzcpICY40TFx4wb3W1NHaqc09dWLk7Rm5czvdO3s9BDKnx6feSXBksz/8XuRk4Em/ fqOXE65LzZzl5mlmMqv1X6HJ4uVq+ax5ExdtvSAlWzP3TqhObYZ+0iUrM7dFk+dvm3/Z6aES S3FGoqEWc1FxIgAOwJYldQIAAA==
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
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: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:12:06 -0000
Dear Alan, et al., may I suggest minor modification by capitalizing Length to the proposed Corrected text: The Length is the length of the data following the Length field. The Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9]. Regards, Greg ________________________________ From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan Davey Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:24 AM To: David Allan I Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Hi Dave Thank you for your response. I think that it is worth raising an erratum for section 3.5.3 because the current text is confusing (note that the colon is in the RFC text). Do you agree? I propose the following. Section 3.5.3 Original text: The length is the length of the following data: the Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9]. Corrected text: The length is the length of the data following the length field. The Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9]. Thanks Alan From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] Sent: 13 May 2013 20:58 To: Alan Davey Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: RE: [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 It is all in how you interpret "The length is the length of the following data." Which is referring to the diagram above (e.g. the colon below is your addition), and then goes on to tells you how to find the less-obvious fields. If it said "The length is the length of the data following the length field"... it would be clearer. Dave ________________________________ From: Alan Davey [mailto:Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:59 AM To: David Allan I Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Hi Dave Thank you very much for getting back to me so quickly. I have a further question on RFC 6428 if you have another minute. In section 3.5.3, PW End Point MEP-ID, I think that the text defining the Length field is confusing because it is not clear if the length includes the AGI. The text is currently as follows. The length is the length of the following data: the Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9]. Am I correct in thinking that the Length field is the length of the value fields, as for the Section MEP-ID in section 3.5.1 and the LSP MEP-ID in section 3.5.2? That is, should the text read as follows. The length is the length of the value fields. The Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9]. Thanks Alan From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] Sent: 03 May 2013 18:35 To: Alan Davey; rfc6428@tools.ietf.org<mailto:rfc6428@tools.ietf.org> Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Hi Alan: It is kind of implied, as in "received DOWN while NOT in a misconnectivity state". I'm not sure adding that to the state machine diagram would actually improve the clarity....I'll let others comment. cheers Dave ________________________________ From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan Davey Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:29 AM To: rfc6428@tools.ietf.org<mailto:rfc6428@tools.ietf.org> Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> Subject: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Folks I have a doubt about RFC 6428. Could you please let me know what you think of the following. Section 3.7.4.2., Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect, states that "Exit from a mis-connectivity defect state occurs when no CV messages with mis-connectivity defects have been received for a period of 3.5 seconds". However, the State Machines in section 3.7.5 have no input corresponding to an "Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect" timer pop. (Although they do have a MIS-CONNECTIVITY input added by RFC 6428.) If the State Machine is followed then Down state is exited as soon as the remote system signals Down state. Should the State Machines be modified such that Down state following a MIS-CONNECTIVITY input is only exited after an "Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect" timer pop input or am I missing something? Regards Alan Davey Network Technologies Metaswitch Networks alan.davey@metaswitch.com<mailto:alan.davey@metaswitch.com> +44 (0) 20 8366 1177 network-technologies.metaswitch.com<http://network-technologies.metaswitch.com/>
- [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Alan Davey
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 David Allan I
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Alan Davey
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 David Allan I
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Alan Davey
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 David Allan I
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Gregory Mirsky