[mpls] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Record on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-05: (with COMMENT)

["Gorry (erg)" <[e-mail]>]

On 26 Apr 2025, at 15:29, Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]> wrote:



Thanks Gorry!

For #1, we can use rfc8287.

For #2, this is covered in Section 4, specifically length validation would catch that.

For #3, I agree.

THanks,

Carlos.

Great,

Gorry

On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 4:43 PM Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:

Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-05: No Record

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid/" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read this in IESG review and I did not see transport-related concerns,
so I rely on routing experts to comment upon the operation.

The following comments are therefore non-blocking, but I would appreciate their
consideration when the next I-D is prepared/

(1) It would be helpful if “LSP Traceroute” was supported by a reference.

(2) The following is expressed as a note in the I-D:
   /Note that the three
   new Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs are mutual exclusive and they wouldn't
   be present in one message simultaneously./
- I am not familiar with the details of MPLS, so I ask could this be about a
requirement with a “MUST” - I’d like to know what happens if a receiver sees
all three present: is reception of more than one a fault, something resolved by
precedence between the items? or something else? - I’d appreciate an email to
explain this to help me learn.

(3) There are a few places were the text might be improved replacing “would”:
/would follow/follows/
/ would be used to validate/is used to validate/ - three times?