Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 32CCC129515; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:40:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 mfFxCsN4Le63; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22b.google.com (mail-wr0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22b]) (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 057A21294E3; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id g10so56567832wrg.2; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:40:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=m5XmNsHb0fX0n9tENQKbiMC0Iz6tp4D/yGSmZF6oMIM=; b=foGgMMffRwJ24pRcSwdhQ3cM4PmxQ31ExeH/eJJNgTlvP+H6oJTrdFTC6Z0bl+jcnT v94THr2yy4nmcSOZcDvIlTq0GTnnIR4gIA/amimGJBjU9MjGrUFvLlBMU56fskxxjioZ kDw1HXiFz35UF+yqMsA8eVA57MRLkV97+ioqZL8CeubolUUjwiLirC9Yz89e4/DPUhuR 4EDnNynOsY9E3ce73P+K9wcuY3Hf23ia6i3x2d4Yptyurz33AD/LsttZ8BCwFzWmxAtA K1/0TCeI54EwbR6HYdqD3GMwBFJyS+pBHmWdrE336CsLxWrV8a7IElKYOEkQAXBw1VVY RkaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m5XmNsHb0fX0n9tENQKbiMC0Iz6tp4D/yGSmZF6oMIM=; b=cWwv9TguM3FN9oEDFjvaPoC7BkVli0eoMzhNeyi/3v2p5QnvPBKj+XT+n+du6DVjU0 KWNqdw7damGfrQjMEGm7+u7wORwGnOqXPEJ+a7ctlBDE9GLeekx7r+qWTtWZP0DORp5G tniOMkKEniqfRzwcMqaCDwLKSFFhitDtleNWDWfOCyRzthBFpuZr0Vqjsk9fm0hX5Grb d5bHXw9Zzd9qj116uMGyzvEyVHxrvMcYUz73BJSJ9VSInkIhqI9b4SfHrlD/idodE1Qt w5yQOIbZSUabK+X0NiSbClGTucaPoWXukor5kJUCy8AgkOz0ITn3UyDe6Ffmazu7Sc9x MnSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lY45lBbu2iwO/id8etynpItEXl/lSyWOEMPx1MfA6j+UnvGvJJFhC0gSvjSF5ZwqeTrt0JO7XaaIaHyA==
X-Received: by 10.223.155.193 with SMTP id e1mr13106986wrc.86.1488472853125; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.145.5 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:40:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXsBLjRDWOyARooWa1qtLfADxmyjU2-VAFgke7+XWrfbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148840955223.7128.11294700301996460693.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmXPvwUYtu0YEYVwSibC-5Bd_574DKexQCV3UYvznkGULg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rf9tLRA9T2SQiTuUDNrLAFu1FXz0sS3nq5vjG-qX=BYew@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXsBLjRDWOyARooWa1qtLfADxmyjU2-VAFgke7+XWrfbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:40:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1re-DE-tYtM6bH_20TSjuzTfcOR51fRF=wg2miiep6gyJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1b31f2ab20ef0549c217f0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/mkvQwMLoZTm5EMkFGSsH-NB4sms>
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:40:58 -0000

LGTM - thanks!

I'll clear now - assuming you will post the updated draft.

Regards,
Alia

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Hi Alia,
> thank you for the proposed text. Accepted. Please see the updated text
> below.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alia,
>>> thank you for your thorough review and the comments. Please find my
>>> responses in-line tagged GIM>>.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: Discuss
>>>>
>>>> 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/stat
>>>> ement/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-residence-time/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for a clear document.  I think that this should be a
>>>> straightforward Discuss to better clarify.
>>>>
>>>> In Section 4.8.1, it says "The RTM Set sub-object contains an ordered
>>>> list, from egress node to
>>>>    ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path." but the
>>>> sub-TLVs (as most clearly
>>>> indicated by "4.8.1.3.  Unnumbered Interface Sub-TLV" are actually meant
>>>> to be a list of interfaces.
>>>>
>>> GIM>> I think that the text, e.g. by stating "The Length is always 12" and
>>> the Figure 10 are clear that only one interface can be listed in the
>>> sub-TLV.
>>> And the same is true for other sub-TLVs.
>>>
>>
>> The draft says"Only a single RTM_SET  sub-TLV with the given Value field
>> MUST be present in the RTM_SET   TLV.  If more than one sub-TLV is found
>> the LSP setup MUST fail"
>>
>> There is nothing there that clearly states that only one of the 3
>> sub-TLVs should be place in the RTM_SET TLV for a particular node.  There
>> is also the inaccuracy between putting in interface addresses versus the
>> claim that it contains nodes.
>>
>> For instance, text could be added/changed to indicate:
>>
>> "The RTM_SET TLV is intended to include the subset of the RRO Object that
>> represents those egress interfaces on the LSP that are RTM-capable.  After
>> a node chooses an egress interface to use in the RRO sub-TLV, that same
>> egress interface, if RTM-capable,  SHOULD be placed into the RTM_SET TLV
>> using one of the IPv4 sub-TLV, IPv6 sub-TLV, or Unnumbered Interface
>> sub-TLV.  The address family chosen SHOULD match that of the RESV message
>> and that used in the RRO; the unnumbered interface sub-TLV is used when the
>> egress interface has no assigned IP address.  A node MUST NOT place more
>> sub-TLVs in the RTM_SET TLV than the number of RTM-capable egress
>> interfaces the LSP traverses that are under that node's control."
>>
>> OLD TEXT:
>
>    Sub-TLVs are organized as a last-in-first-out stack.  The first -out
>    sub-TLV relative to the beginning of RTM_SET TLV is considered the
>    top.  The last-out sub-TLV is considered the bottom.  When a new sub-
>    TLV is added, it is always added to the top.  Only a single RTM_SET
>    sub-TLV with the given Value field MUST be present in the RTM_SET
>    TLV.  If more than one sub-TLV is found the LSP setup MUST fail with
>    the generation of a PathErr message with the Error Code "Duplicate
>    sub-TLV" Section 8.9 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-05#section-8.9> and Error Value contains 16-bit value composed
>    of (Type of TLV, Type of sub-TLV).
>
>
> NEW TEXT:
>
>    Sub-TLVs are organized as a last-in-first-out stack.  The first-out
>    sub-TLV relative to the beginning of RTM_SET TLV is considered the
>    top.  The last-out sub-TLV is considered the bottom.  When a new sub-
>    TLV is added, it is always added to the top.
>
>    The RTM_SET TLV is intended to include the subset of the RRO sub-TLVs
>    that represents those egress interfaces on the LSP that are RTM-
>    capable.  After a node chooses an egress interface to use in the RRO
>    sub-TLV, that same egress interface, if RTM-capable, SHOULD be placed
>    into the RTM_SET TLV using one of the IPv4 sub-TLV, IPv6 sub-TLV, or
>    Unnumbered Interface sub-TLV.  The address family chosen SHOULD match
>    that of the RESV message and that used in the RRO; the unnumbered
>    interface sub-TLV is used when the egress interface has no assigned
>    IP address.  A node MUST NOT place more sub-TLVs in the RTM_SET TLV
>    than the number of RTM-capable egress interfaces the LSP traverses
>    that are under that node's control.  Only a single RTM_SET sub-TLV
>    with the given Value field MUST be present in the RTM_SET TLV.  If
>    more than one sub-TLV is found the LSP setup MUST fail with the
>    generation of a ResvErr message with the Error Code "Duplicate sub-
>    TLV" Section 7.9 and Error Value contains 16-bit value composed of
>    (Type of TLV, Type of sub-TLV).
>
>
>
>> It isn't clear whether these are supposed to be the egress interface, the
>>>> ingress interface, or just any
>>>> interface
>>>
>>> GIM>> In order for the process described in section 4.8 to work RTM node
>>> MUST use the same ID in RTM_SET sub-TLV as in RRO subobject.
>>>
>>
>> Right - but I don't see the draft saying that clearly.  See my suggested
>> text above.
>>
>>
>>> - or why sending just a Router ID wouldn't be sufficient.
>>>> There is no indication as to whether
>>>> it is ok to include both the IPv4 and IPv6 address Sub-TLVs for the same
>>>> node or how to select which one
>>>> to use.
>>>>
>>> GIM>> Selection should follow election of ID for corresponding subobject
>>> in RRO.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed - see suggested text.
>>
>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 1) I am disappointed that the sub-TLV needed for an OSPFv3 Extended LSA
>>>> isn't defined.  While I understand that a normative reference isn't
>>>> desirable - instead of "left for future study", it would be better to
>>>> say
>>>> that the sub-TLV should use the same format as in Sec 4.3 and that the
>>>> type allocation and full details are left to a future document.   This
>>>> is
>>>> exactly how gaps are created for networks running only IPv6.   If
>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-13 were not waiting for
>>>> implementations
>>>> and had a clear time-frame for how and when to progress, this would also
>>>> be a Discuss.
>>>>
>>> GIM>> I agree that your proposal narrows the gap for IPv6 extension for
>>> RTM capability advertisement. Will apply the text you've suggested in the
>>> next version. Hope OSPF WG agrees to this change.
>>>
>>
>> OLD TEXT:
>
>    The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) can be
>    advertised in OSPFv3 using LSA extensions as described in
>    [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14#ref-I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend>].  Exact use of OSPFv3 LSA
>    extensions is for further study.
>
> NEW TEXT:
>
>    The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) can be
>    advertised in OSPFv3 using LSA extensions as described in
>    [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend].  The sub-TLV SHOULD use the same
>    format as in Section 4.3.  The type allocation and full details of
>    exact use of OSPFv3 LSA extensions is for further study.
>
>
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>
>