Re: [mpls] Retiring ACH TLVs

Pablo Frank <pabloisnot@gmail.com> Thu, 16 May 2013 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <pabloisnot@gmail.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 0213021F85D1 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 6jFORy3gPbuX for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x230.google.com (mail-ve0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD46D21F8517 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id jz10so1930210veb.7 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rApio4pC91uXBr/wVk2f2rWef2h5KpeZduG+8m6Ydjw=; b=eG5mlmTRNM9unuWgocIi1LoYg5lHAGHUG8M7s/jzq4Xpr/9+Jt5JgP/rKMQf0wkXFq kQRtwBETsv6ixfNJs/V9usu8rvQ2bYG6w5yJyzLHO/79F2TukO88yDX27U8T7pgJC9/7 C2zawTwt5kjZLE5A/TQ5yYZGH+VjNY+Pfcol6kcHq2fPDKwq692rBrYSa5hU8n8RdWAs E6Dj2EPb9rWoivehDu2mj19cImTx+HIJpZk956ot4ZxZRZL4W8atUsRPTnFxqjY4ebLA uIPK5xNYMZE0h3/Jns3iCkik+zcsaPcqxzRlYf0HPKx/Y6oSTkgtcCR6mv1541CxPpUL necw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.75.71 with SMTP id a7mr24034602vdw.104.1368717203538; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.114.9 with HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <002a01ce4b45$82e38ae0$88aaa0a0$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <002a01ce4b45$82e38ae0$88aaa0a0$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:13:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGEmCZwMFJZv-Vy62jScZCjesoE_O+GOgAfi-L700cPP-08N1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pablo Frank <pabloisnot@gmail.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3071cf7eb7075204dcd74e83"
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Retiring ACH TLVs
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: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:13:28 -0000

Please, please do this.

thanks,
Pablo


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> ACH TLVs keep popping up and causing Stewart and me trouble. Mainly it is
> about explaining why no-one actually wants to use them (i.e., when each new
> ACH Type is defined and has a "No TLVs" written for it, we get asked "why
> not?").
>
> It seems to us that ACH TLVs are an idea that has been rejected. Initially
> we thought they might be used (especially for identifiers), but there seems
> to be good opinion that handling generic TLVs would be a pain.
>
> Since I was heavily responsible for insisting that ACH TLVs were included
> in RFC 5586, it seems reasonable that I do the work to fix it.
>
> The I-D below retires ACH TLVs and handles the necessary registry changes.
>
> Note, of course, that structured data are still possible within individual
> ACHs if the protocol spec for an individual ACH decides to have them.
>
> We're directing this work to the MPLS working group because that is where
> 5586 was written. I have BCC'ed PWE3, L2VPN, and BFD for information.
>
> Thanks for any comments.
>
> As humble WG contributors we would be enthusiastic to see early WG
> adoption and last call :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> > Sent: 07 May 2013 17:33
> > To: Adrian Farrel; Stewart Bryant
> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-
> > 00.txt
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Adrian Farrel and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Filename:      draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
> > Revision:      00
> > Title:                 Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header
> of the MPLS
> > Generic Associated Channel
> > Creation date:         2013-05-07
> > Group:                 Individual Submission
> > Number of pages: 4
> > URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-
> > ach-tlv-00.txt
> > Status:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
> > Htmlized:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of
> >    the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header
> >    (ACH).  RFC 5586 defines the concept of Type-Length-Variable (TLV)
> >    constructs that can be carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing
> >    them in the ACH.
> >
> >    No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses a TLV.  Furthermore, it
> >    is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant
> >    problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to
> >    be processed substantially in hardware, the use of TLVs in
> >    undesirable.
> >
> >    This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the
> >    associated registry.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>