Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam Mon, 29 November 2021 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1D23A0963; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 05:20:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nxf3inITg7bT; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 05:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C38A3A08CE; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 05:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4J2mDx3rjhz8tDm; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:20:33 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1638192033; bh=fcibGcDLY1UPeM1kWFo99/YjA4eiJuFGKglof3SrWk0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ewNI5MWkO8kbSTjcCGVtzDktg27tGrPmD6+/8B9W4PhI8ACkZUB5iZepMGDjWZztX qQnHdh8DbDkNs5jmFASY/OTCnms9nJOebhnCdEWhRE+VETu1M8uZQWQyjjsgnccssG 09+s1I9inh+MAOjgKwm6YGv1hVm0H/E/xF3irWPNEHcjzWAwyW5bDKpZ8sdlyXxslk lL6n9e+oZ6LUhiJToMOkcO8AloAEF+PtW3FQNc5+XWw1A/w/mZ6LgYXKJWHh0hMsIO t5Z43JOiFJy700YyiyakE245hOmeSeQFz9tqqYtFr8nnIU8S1zrgDgGI9xY+i8jM6G 8/A4H62XDx96w==
To: Loa Andersson <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
Thread-Index: AQHX2sg8IYBYZ2N1GUG983msIWHpC6wajjwg
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:20:32 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_SetDate=2021-11-29T13:20:31Z; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_Name=Orange_restricted_external.2; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_SiteId=90c7a20a-f34b-40bf-bc48-b9253b6f5d20; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_ContentBits=2
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_enabled: true
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_setdate: 2021-11-29T13:20:31Z
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_method: Standard
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_name: Orange_restricted_external.2
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_siteid: 90c7a20a-f34b-40bf-bc48-b9253b6f5d20
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_actionid: 3ab01ef2-6c32-4e09-8dbb-bdf87fdc9e8c
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_contentbits: 0
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:20:42 -0000

Hi Loa, WG.


Please find below some proposed comments.

§4.1 "The S bit SHOULD be zero upon transmission, and MUST be ignored upon reception."

So essentially the flag has no meaning? If so, what about making it as reserved?

"   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] defines various types of
   segments.  The segments applicable to this document have been re-
   defined here."

I'm not found of "re-defined". Surely this document is not meant to update SR-policy and redefine those types. Could you propose a different wording?


"   Below types of segment sub-TLVs are applicable for the Reverse Path
   Segment List TLV.

   Type 1: SID only, in the form of MPLS Label

   Type 3: IPv4 Node Address with optional SID

   Type 4: IPv6 Node Address with optional SID for SR MPLS"

SR-policy renamed those to Type A, C, D. Is there a reason to change the name or could the same name be used?
§4.2 "  SID: 4 octet MPLS label."

MPLS label is not encoded using 4 octet. Please clarify how the label is encoded. (e.g. "as per Type 1 encoding" would work for me).
"   If length is 12, then the IPv4 Node Address and the MPLS SID are present."

Please specify the behavior when the label is not consistent with the IP+SR fields. (e.g. which info is preferred)
§ 13
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] Is now RC9087.

§3 "For traceroute purposes, the headend/PMS need to acquire the
   entire database or use dynamically computed return path as described
   in Section 8"

"entire database" may be an overstatement. Maybe only the knowledge of the ABRS could be enough?


Orange Restricted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 9:59 AM
> To:
> Cc:;
> Subject: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-
> domain-oam
> Working Group,
> This is to start a two week poll on adopting
> draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
> as a MPLS working group document.
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list ( Please give a technical
> motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
> the document should not be adopted as a working group document.
> There is one IPR disclosure against this document. The data tracker says
> that there are 2 disclosure, but that depends on that the IPR holder
> updated the disclosure when the filename of the was changed.
> All the authors and contributors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing list
> that they are unaware of any other IPRs that relates to this document.
> The working group adoption poll ends November 30, 2021.
> /Loa
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email:
> Senior MPLS Expert                
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.