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, 02 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 >> > >
- [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-res… Alia Atlas
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Alia Atlas
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Alia Atlas
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls… Greg Mirsky