[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid (was Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid)

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

That sounds like a good idea.  I look forward to the text.

Yours,

Joel

On 8/20/2024 10:08 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>
> Hi Joel,
>
>
> Thanks for your remind!
>
>
> Since the path segment may be configured with SR Policy through PCEP, 
> as a co-author of draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment, I suggest to add 
> some texts in this draft to clarify the process and information 
> related to the Association and SR Policy.
>
> What is your thoughts?Thanks!
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Quan
>
>
>
> Original
> *From: *JoelHalpern <[e-mail]>
> *To: *熊泉00091065;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>;
> *Date: *2024年08月20日 22:16
> *Subject: **Re: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for 
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid (was Re: Working Group Last 
> Call on draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid)*
>
> Should the draft be clearer about what control messages the tail will 
> have received in each case, and which field from those messages it 
> will compare with the fields defined in this draft?  For example, this 
> email says that it needs to look at the PCE Association information.  
> How was the reader to realize that?
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> On 8/20/2024 4:39 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>>
>> From my view, as shown in figure 3,4 and 5 
>> draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment 
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment/>, 
>> the PCE will send PCInitiate message to Egress PCC. And 
>> the  PCInitiate message will not only include the PATH-SEGMENT TLV in 
>> the LSP object, but also carry the association object. As specified 
>> in RFC8697 section 6.3.1 [1], the PCInitiate message is as following 
>> shown.
>>
>> <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>                                       <LSP>                                       [<END-POINTS>]                                       <ERO>                                       [<association-list>]                                       [<attribute-list>] Where: <association-list> ::= <ASSOCIATION> [<association-list>]
>>
>> [1]https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8697.html#name-stateful-pcep-messages 
>>
>>
>>
>> From this message, the LSP object will include PATH-SEGMENT TLV and 
>> the ASSOCIATION object which is related to the SR policy will carry 
>> the assication source (headend).
>>
>> Hope that will help! Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Quan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list [e-mail]  To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]  
> *From: *GregMirsky <[e-mail]>
> *To: *熊泉00091065;
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>;
> *Date: *2024年08月20日 11:39
> *Subject: **Re: Working Group Last Call for 
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid (was Re: Working Group Last 
> Call on draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid)*
> Hi Quan,
> thank you for clarifying that to me. I hope that you can help me in 
> understanding how the ASSOCIATION object of SR Policy type is related 
> to figures 3, 4, and 5 draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment/>. 
> AFAICS, only flow of PATH-SEGMENT TLV from PCEP to PCC in both headend 
> and endpoint of the SR Policy is reflected in these figures. At which 
> phase the ASSOCIATION object is communicated to the endpoint?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 7:59 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Hi Greg,
>
>
>     Thanks for your questions!
>
>
>     The identity of the SR Policy's Headend has been proposed in
>     the PCE-related specifications. As per
>     draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp section 4.1 [1], the
>     headend is encoded in the 'Association Source' field in the
>     ASSOCIATION object. The color and endpoint are encoded as part of
>     the Extended Association ID TLV.
>
>
>     [1]
>     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17.html#name-association-parameters
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Quan
>
>
>
>
>
>           [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for
>           draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid (was Re: Working
>           Group Last Call on draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid)
>
>     Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> Mon, 19 August 2024 23:32
>     UTCShow header <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/#>
>
>     Dear All,  I paused to arrange my concerns about the draft and put them in front of you more clearly. Below is what it came to:     - The purpose of Target FEC Stack TLV in LSP echo request, as I    understand it, is to verify consistency between the data plane and the    control plane view of the data plane. That is why the sender of an echo    request with Target FEC Stack TLV includes a sub-TLV that, from the    sender's perspective, sufficiently represents the control plane information    associated with the verifiable label.    - If the above is correct, I move to the next point. All sub-TLVs in the    Target FEC Stack TLV must be validated. The validation process is    sub-TLV-specific. This draft defines the validation process, using PCEP as    an example, as follows:  *  Validate that the signaled headend, color, end-point,  originator ASN, originator address, and discriminator  defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]  and [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment], for the PSID,  matches with the corresponding fields in the received  SR Candidate Path's PSID sub-TLV.  Now, my question: What is meant as validation of Headend?     - The reason for my question above is that I cannot find that the    identity of the Headend is included in PCEP constructs defined for the    configuration of an SR Policy. Am I missing something in PCE-related    specifications, or must they be enhanced to convey the identity of the SR    Policy's Headend?    - There's a possible way to use information already available in the    IP-encapsulated echo request message and source IP address. Personally, I    would consider such a check a security measure rather than validation, but    how would validation work if no IP/UDP encapsulation of the echo request is    used?  I hope that I made my concern more evident now. I welcome your comments and questions.   Regards,  Greg   On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 10:13 AM Tarek Saad<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]%3E>  wrote:  > Hi WG, > > > > I am correcting a mistake to reference to the WG adopted draft (as opposed > to the individual draft for the same document). Sorry for the confusion. > > > > Regards, > > Tarek > > > > *From: *Tarek Saad<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]%3E>> > *Date: *Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 9:53 AM > *To: *[e-mail]  <[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]%3E>> *Cc: *MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]%3E>, >[e-mail]  < >[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]%3E>> *Subject: *Working Group Last Call on > draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid > > Dear WG, > > > > This email starts a two-week working group last call for > draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid/> > . > > > > Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed > to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If > you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version, and > it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and > nits are most welcome. > > > > Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([e-mail]) > > If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs. > > > > Note, currently there are no IPR disclosures > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid>> > against this document. > > > > This poll runs until August 20, 2024. > > > > Thank you, > > Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs) > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]>
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-xp-mpls-s…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/m8JQNhCgDBY-H00-QyVynL0xQlA/>  Tarek
>         Saad
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-xp-mp…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Ff_fzOQftAUJE1OCOo9MfOuC8Ss/>  Greg
>         Mirsky
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-mpl…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/p2PCHcqHFUoxgzHjEwXryCKxDbA/>  Tarek
>         Saad
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/DK8cuGulr1TrlASamaglObTmbg8/>  Greg
>         Mirsky
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/F8T-os4HjPjp-1NGNSJBolEXPoc/>  xiao.min2
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/8Tl8qbEQKpOlX-c1_wKJZ4HkqEo/>  Greg
>         Mirsky
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/yd4wenJ-KjeCa240cQ2VsEA5G4k/>  xiao.min2
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/yXlc5ISwgAW02oekDr9-ZWanJ64/>  Greg
>         Mirsky
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/qeTEZYtA6LJCRUxE_h-6IMGRz_E/>  xiao.min2
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/NTttA8bnUMI4cKSWtPFaZImWl5M/>  Greg
>         Mirsky
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/SucCkKTNej4mc3SxCDkkr0oFm_c/>  xiao.min2
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/709_ilwfE6y1N6nmjUnjF247tP4/>  xiao.min2
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/lIvQv4arUk3NYY5kKOno_NV7w_g/>  peng.shaofu
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/8DxWMSU9ijaGNKboey9eIoilgF8/>  Rakesh
>         Gandhi
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/FPJ-e6_mgFmLqhEHIn-Qgz11k9A/>  Liyan
>         Gong
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/8ARNsP7UrjxIpBpwpR_OgbbalGI/>  Greg
>         Mirsky
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/PsDO75uvugDPLWClOT5Qk3Tb8Kw/>  Greg
>         Mirsky
>
>      *
>
>         [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-xp-mp…
>         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/31q68-_0N7hOOBa0ErNOSSQfn7M/>  高星(联通集团本部)
>
>
>