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

Hi,

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

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
needed).

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.

Thanks,
Adrian

-----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;
draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification@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 
draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification?

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-
clarification.

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.

/Loa
  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
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls