Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04.txt

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

Are you strting to understand why I spent time to clean up the LSP Ping 
registry :) ??

I'm convinced that by the updates ine 
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update erything in this registry is 
cöose to coorect.

Howeve it is not always clear and it is easy to go wrong.

Let us see if I can sort it out (and if you have text for improvements 
that is fine)

LDP Ping has two messages "Echo Request" and "Echo Reply".
- both message may carry a "Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"

-- the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV has a "Labels Stack sub-TLV"

--- Labels Stack sub-TL has a "Protocol" code point (see registry
     "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
      Mapping TLV".

---- it is Protocol code point registry that is updated and extended by
      the draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint

Similarly the "Echo Request" and "Echo Reply"
  has three TLVs
-Type 1 (Target FEC Stack)
  Type 16 (Reverse Path - Target FEC Stack)
  Type 21 (Reply Path)

-- Each of these TLVs has three sub-TLVs has a Segment ID sub-TLV

--- Segment ID su-b-TLV has a "Protocol" code point

---- it is Protocol code point registry that is updated and extended by
      the draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint

The protocol registgries are not update by 
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update.

/Loa


On 03/02/2021 17:38, tom petch wrote:
> From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 03 February 2021 05:05
> 
> Tom,
> 
> While I'm a great fan of references, I don't see that it is necessary in
> this case.
> 
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update updates the Message Types,
> Reply Modes, Return Codes. TLV and sub-TLV registries.
> 
> The code point for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint is
> allocated from the "Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV" registry. This
> registry is not change, so I don't see that the scenario you describe
> below could play out.
> 
> <tp>
> My starting point is that I cannot make sense of the IANA Considerations in this I-D. They might be clearer if they used the allocated numbers for TLV and sub-TLV.
> 
> It  says
> "   IANA is requested to assign a new code point for OSPFv3 from
>     "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"
>     registry under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
>     Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry as follows:"
> 
> Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV would appear to be TLV20 so Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV should be a sub-TLV of TLV20; there is no such sub-TLV. IANA lists
> 1 Multipath data [RFC8029]
> 2 Label stack [RFC8029]
> 3 FEC stack change [RFC8029]
> 4 Local Interface Index [RFC8611]
> 5 Remote Interface Index [RFC8611]
> 
> I find that problematic.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 03/02/2021 01:39, tom petch wrote:
>> I believe that this I-D needs a Normative Reference to
>>                Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters
>>                draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update
>> since that I-D updates the registry that this I-D then seeks to update and if this I-D gets there first then the update can be overridden by
>>                Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters
>>                draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-07
>> and lost.
>>
>> And this last I-D changes the meaning of the registry which could be seen as theoretically rendering this I-D invalid.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>> From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: 27 January 2021 20:58
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG of the IETF.
>>
>>           Title           : OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping
>>           Authors         : Nagendra Kumar Nainar
>>                             Carlos Pignataro
>>                             Mustapha Aissaoui
>>           Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04.txt
>>           Pages           : 6
>>           Date            : 2021-01-27
>>
> 
> --
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]