Re: [mpls] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-06: (with COMMENT)

"Adrian Farrel" <> Thu, 06 June 2019 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86659120115; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 06:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPu8BRwoY4W1; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 06:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7D97120074; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 06:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x56Dxj5n026584; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:59:45 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4302203A; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:59:45 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2467E22032; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:59:45 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x56DxgoN014054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:59:44 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Suresh Krishnan'" <>, "'The IESG'" <>
Cc: <>, "'Loa Andersson'" <>, <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:59:41 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <012a01d51c70$183837b0$48a8a710$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFGYywXWYWCkrDzAtWJ4/loCRUOgaesGa3Q
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.672-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--9.672-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--9.672400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: X4bcv0S75KnxIbpQ8BhdbBlJRfzNw8afUd7Bjfo+5jRRn/oY4smnH+Ga gQwUd6qhBrK0xUCATVWUPT8erJu9rrvSNsvk1dNdqjZ865FPtpoIOKDcZUYipAzvg1/q1MH2F+y sh/b8rvyGC2e45GlfE3Y+rAPR3hdULt4of82osfKdVNZaI2n6/wVyeo9hM9SHnWpmWAL+UXAp88 Fd8jhVKZ4A8TfvEgpJfylF9exmNpuRTfgfKCWeWvVY7U3NX8Jg52mltlE2n8iA6UrbM3j3qSQWY orzvoujY3vV31ovJhrEX8fkVQyJ5++c5IL6OTgOnJ5tL+LbGONIwovbX4T40KlTFDGZMPhCeLX1 WZ155N4vt/aGmCb77CUjg0egYyII2y/Oe6xpIuOeAiCmPx4NwFkMvWAuahr8i2QFaYS1v20qtq5 d3cxkNYwmYPNvIh231Y8V3Ux2d2yQB/+5FmFOIVvGXT84CNX85jSwtt2qW5Q=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-06: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:59:51 -0000

Could shout, Suresh.

Let me think about that for a bit.

Best, Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <>; 
Sent: 06 June 2019 14:53
To: The IESG <>;
Cc:; Loa Andersson <>;;;;
Subject: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-06: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-06: No Objection

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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for a clear and well written document. I only had one question. The
document seems to rely on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-09 and
draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap-01 to provide the tunnel encapsulation
parameters. These two IGP documents allow for the UDP destination ports to be
specified in the tunnel encapsulation attribute, while RFC7510 requires the use
of 6635 as the destination port. I think it would be good if this draft
specifies what happens if a different UDP port is received in the IGP tunnel
encapsulation attribute. i.e. use the received value, ignore and use 6635, or
fail with error.