[mpls] Pipelining the inevitable adoption poll on draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 26 February 2019 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73871130E0A; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:20:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gDXPpZ_rjMvn; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40751128D52; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com []) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1QBK4sg024355; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:20:29 GMT
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CA72203D; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:20:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown []) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 911FB2203B; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:20:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1QBKSoY008196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:20:29 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>, mpls@ietf.org
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:20:26 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <033901d4cdc5$4640f2e0$d2c2d8a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdTNxUJnQ9WDFgDvRYi52BMJf0SHhw==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.111-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.111-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--14.110800-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: mW99dfI1akbrVTsiFsFXUu0yyL51qL/Rbv16+gil4jca/zWbQz3vDsRR ZcdK8iLVPoy8Pn2QUB4lStg77z5P8LmvMSppeWbNiUPZPmKZOQk0AKed0u9fB1S+oHmj8upzZFT v8fPT86qdc5dM1EteS4aVT2uqSTCKC1tmyPg2GOwOrlBkQa9qFr4kZYg1dp8s4fGZffm2qCbIU7 MLOn2QZr6tLBAJJgxMcoxNRlsX7B4WiEoVBSOGHWA/V00XWjDtnophrTcsI7YutoY2UtFqGIQbd XsAoVM1SUkludY5bcKqEjHR8FX3BS3F56OiNwp/AP2Bflpd3h+3Tv9y50YCe7t4BAaULwAVN8RG TfW9Fj3DgGiSi1hwZzaa3EyGqiXD350iwCDSh6bzh2yKdnl7WAuK1hIitSIHpcn28zKwP8I5dQU r4gk2wsKSxWoRVwxk+MOUD1zmrJ3DTqNelQn9chzwnpmtY/+rfS0Ip2eEHny+qryzYw2E8Avgps XypsAMDMq3z/Y/gtXfd+P6wwCt84RtqopBKUBlDyT9JHN70wgCi4arQzHkFgcO7yGdwd0upsXP5 8vYLfkCLDuO5cBkxQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/f6IDrUkPAlOyDNBaElwIWHl5NfA>
Subject: [mpls] Pipelining the inevitable adoption poll on draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 26 Feb 2019 11:20:36 -0000


Since Loa is polling for IPR, I suspect an adoption poll is likely to

I know this document arises from confusion during interop, and I have some
sympathy with people who find RFCs hard to parse. I also understand that the
AD rejected fixing this through an Errata Report, and so the only option is
to publish an RFC (the motivation here appears to be that consensus is
needed for the resolution).

IMHO, 8029 is clear on how to set the length of a TLV or sub-TLV. The
sub-TLV length includes all of the fields of the sub-TLV, but not any
trailing padding. The TLV length includes all of the sub-TLV padding.

Thus, the only issue I can see here was that there was confusion about
whether fields marked as "Reserved" formed part of the sub-TLVs. The only
reason they would be, would be to allow for future extensions, otherwise
they would just be padding.

Clearly (according to this document) they were intended to be part of the
sub-TLVs (for extensions). That is inconsistent with how 8029 is written,
but since 8287 uses "Reserved" not "MBZ" it is acceptable if that is really
want people want to achieve (i.e., that is the consensus decision that is

Doesn't that mean that the *only* text needed is to say...
"Fields marked 'Reserved' in sub-TLVs defined in RFC 8287 are an integral
part of the sub-TLVs and MUST be accounted in computation of the length of
the sub-TLVs."?

The current draft seems like a lot of text to make that clarification.


-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: 26 February 2019 07:09
To: mpls@ietf.org
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org;
Subject: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification

Working Group, authors,

We have started to prepare draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification
for working group adoption, prior to the wgap we need to do an IPR poll.

This mail starts this IPR poll.

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to 

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

There no IPR disclosures against draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant
IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the MPLS WG mailing list.* The
document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

  mpls wg co-chair

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

mpls mailing list