Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 30 September 2015 13:57 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 28CD71A8740; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
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 HTeh8uXy86fI; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
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 2EE091A873A; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [49.149.211.243]) (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 B5B2C18013B2; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:57:05 +0200 (CEST)
To: "George Swallow (swallow)" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150930031111.861.10509.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <560B7385.6050401@pi.nu> <D2315C8F.122592%swallow@cisco.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <560BEA26.3030502@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:56:54 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2315C8F.122592%swallow@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/iUWMdCw58efN-9bvpoaGwdW-n-Y>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)
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: <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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:57:16 -0000

George,

I don't think that this really addresses Alvaro's point, waiting for
Alvaro to acknowledge my point, after that I was going to suggest.

NEW:

   The Type of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV will be allocated by
   IANA from the range Range defined in [RFC4379] as "optional TLVs
   that can be silently dropped if not recognized².  An LSR that does
   not recognize the TLV SHOULD ignore it.

I think that does addresses the concern that one can use any number
in the range. We also need the range pointed out explicitly in the
IANA section.

/Loa

On 2015-09-30 21:41, George Swallow (swallow) wrote:
> Loa, Lizhong -
>
> I suggest:
>
> OLD:
>
>     The Type of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is chosen from the range
>     32768 to 49161 so that (per section 3 of [RFC4379] an LSR that does
>     not recognize the TLV knows that the TLV is optional and can safely
>     ignore it.
>
>
>
> NEW:
>
>     The Type of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is chosen from the range
>     Range defined in [RFC4379] as "optional TLVs that can be silently
>     dropped if not recognized².  An LSR that does
>     not recognize the TLV SHOULD ignore it.
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> On 9/30/15, 1:30 AM, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>
>> Alvaro,
>>
>> Pleaese see your first comment.
>>
>> On 2015-09-30 11:11, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: No Objection
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to
>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I have some comments/questions:
>>>
>>> 1. TBD2 is the Relay Node Address Stack TLV Type.  There seems to be
>>> some
>>> confusion in the text: Section 4.2. (Receiving an Echo Request)  says
>>> that the "Type of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is chosen from the
>>> range 32768 to 49161Š² giving the impression that any value can be used,
>>> while 8.2. (New TLV) in the IANA Considerations says that a "suggested
>>> value should be assigned² giving me the impression that the assignment
>>> is
>>> just a suggestion (and somehow reinforcing the text in 4.2), but the
>>> original definition in 3.2. (Relay Node Address Stack) simply says that
>>> the "value should be assigned by IANA².  Assuming that you simply want
>>> an
>>> assignment and that it would be what is used, please clean the text up;
>>> I
>>> suggest just referring to the value as TBD2 (in 4.2 and 8.2) and
>>> explicitly including the text about the assignment and the range (from
>>> 3.2) in 8.2.
>>
>> I'm not sure how to read this - it looks like you are removing the range
>> information. However for LSP Ping the ranges are important. The IANA
>> section should state which range the code point should come from. Here
>> are the allocation policies and how TLVs from the different ranges are
>> reted.
>>
>> 0-16383         Standards Action	
>>                  This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional TLVs
>>                  that require an error message if not recognized.
>>
>> 16384-31743	Specification Required	
>>                  Experimental RFC needed
>>
>> 32768-49161	Standards Action	
>>                  This range is for optional TLVs that can be silently
>>                  dropped if not recognized.
>>
>> 49162-64511	Specification Required	Experimental RFC needed
>>
>> So asking for a TLV from the 32768-49161 range will give you an optional
>> TLV that can be silently dropped if not recognized.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Section 4.1. (Sending an Echo Request) says that the "Relay Node
>>> Address Stack TLV MUST be carried in the Echo Request message if the
>>> relay functionality is required².  How does the initiator know that it
>>> needs the functionality?
>>>
>>> 3. Section 4.2. (Receiving an Echo Request) "A second or more address
>>> entries MAY also be added if necessary, depending on implementation.²
>>> Isn¹t this document defining how the implementation should work?  What
>>> are the cases where these additional entries may be added?
>>>
>>>
>