Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 05 February 2015 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733D01A889A for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:10:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 i27ankMYqzqd for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A539B1A888A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (unknown [49.149.205.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEFAB18013E4; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:10:05 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54D379B8.3010109@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:10:00 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)'" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C1FAE@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947E9729@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <027a01d04134$44d92250$ce8b66f0$@olddog.co.uk> <D0F8DF81.421E6%wesley.george@twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0F8DF81.421E6%wesley.george@twcable.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/dsdcZO72bTUVtlLC_LfD4COF5kY>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 05 Feb 2015 14:10:26 -0000

Wes,

Tnx - I was about to sit down and write pretty much the same mail, a
further comment would be that doing a gap analysis is always at risk of
not cover 100%, but that that on the other hand is not a real problem.
what we need now is some way of following how the gaps evolves/closes
and this could be handle as part of that.

/Loa

On 2015-02-05 21:58, George, Wes wrote:
> The discussion went like this:
>
> By the time we were made aware of this, the document was already in
> auth48, and we did not think that the addition of an informational
> reference was something that we could credibly do during auth48, which is
> intended for minor wording and formatting tweaks only. This would have
> required recalling the document and putting it back through the process,
> and we didn't see this update as being critical to the document's quality.
>
> The way that we left it was that this could certainly be filed via the
> errata process if the WG thinks that it is important, but it could also be
> tracked via whatever means we decide to track the gaps (see other thread).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wes
>
>
> On 2/5/15, 6:09 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm,
>>
>> There was a thread between the authors and chairs discussing this, but it
>> wasn't
>> summarised back to the list.
>>
>> Could someone do that, please.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui,
>>> Mustapha
>>> (Mustapha)
>>> Sent: 04 February 2015 23:15
>>> To: mpls@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I appreciate if the authors provided some input on this question.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mustapha.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui,
>>> Mustapha
>>>> (Mustapha)
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:17 PM
>>>> To: mpls@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> I recently was made aware of RFC 5549 which seems to cover a couple
>>> of the
>>>> gaps in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549
>>>>
>>>> RFC 5549 extends MP-BGP with the ability for an IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1,
>>> SAFI=1),
>>>> labeled IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1, SAFI=4), and VPN-IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1,
>>> SAFI=128) to
>> use
>>>> an IPv6 next-hop. This would I believe cover scenario 2 in sections
>>> 3.3.2,
>> 3.3.2.1,
>>>> and 3.3.2.1 for the above types of routes.
>>>>
>>>> I missed this during the MPLS-RT review and I appreciate if the
>>> authors
>> could
>>>> confirm my observation.
>>>>
>>>> I apologize if this was already discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mustapha.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64