[mpls] draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels - FEC validation

Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 18 July 2017 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <aldrin.ietf@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 D234E131B05; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9mszDUhI_mmJ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 715BA126BF3; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 5so21269694iow.0; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wZLvtO9hC/FlLkY3hJx7PJ/weiNv45/et/Xw8Wow/7E=; b=ECcH/20M3vCnNNQU9svYTnGQni6w9dTheOBmN4EeAUpD66acwHMZcfqNeIyGlZdbRW vLx+il042crlTOmz7S7kEea5z00YeQuxYbiRfeU7PrgMoJsICxwHcOmXne6c03n4xNAE 1jWGADn0tx0PcqF0pBpqbDRq2G3w+mc93v7dHqgbu8ynafoJYXVmpgacfv9hwdS49uOV HMq1p+VuLMSxDrDhaRVwpnU5tSi7dDazfk4jVKxurmWliu8sOs6WyKBtAveDb4fP9N/a YB4F+e2b+8PjxZdB+6IFsUOIciO0Lev+f030dm4Jrr+TYOOxxyDF8VUR0zROHXl/Glex i37A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wZLvtO9hC/FlLkY3hJx7PJ/weiNv45/et/Xw8Wow/7E=; b=OFtgvzXm8g3Zr4oCtEfq+eCU9O8i+CGUzVsaCxWzz/bpQDcxd8ydcNY1IXxBQyJ3P0 ao0I4PlRP/lI8XkogsrIKE93VSGaJbbVhCnUBQeQdRqnjOPTS4xSlKhs5MSJ0itc51TQ LsmbSADA0dJeI8+/vR3K7lezic1ArDWkFNoKay5MqzRLHb2kCsNftJcUF+s3R8e4uS70 EDXGTy4E4rl5d2XCNLiBksLBpCLomQ4Cpk9Ui2B6r9YcQ9ILC2PPwt6T695qjjFEWEkN phuHyfYF1hsyXyqb/D7t5TuZrSMSHJUCLnWVpldSOE7Sxz3KgQhjhdOtu2IHKSDGyMwj sCHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111x6x3ADTFUv1d2/0baHwoPn96z+On7qZ5UuAGlfzRvQykVi7CA YStjiwcXaIF7K+dlWDY8jzzasXJxUQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.22.7 with SMTP id 7mr4047586iow.65.1500418951558; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.29.73 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:02:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+C0YO2RNUOKPzgY1SmTWB3NbGZn=LmKreWqY=T-KFL5i8TDYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05c0e89f67d505549f82ed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/jVKdpNKzGFRMRCjepeSaodOF0uo>
Subject: [mpls] draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels - FEC validation
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 18 Jul 2017 23:02:34 -0000

Draft authors,

The OAM section described in the draft is sparse to minimal.
See the mention of RFC8029, that it could be used without any changes,
which I entirely disagree.

Questions:
1. How are you encapsulating the LSP Ping Echo request with delegation
labels and corresponding FEC stack TLV?
2. If you are saying that delegation node is going to modify the packet and
its payload, this is entirely new mechanism and RFC8029 doesn't provide
mechanics of it. So, add detailed content.
3. What is the FEC type being added for delegation label?

Will comment further, based on the updated content and clarifications.

-sam