IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01

Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com> Sun, 19 April 2015 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465291A8986 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 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, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 RJ0pgziEnyYI for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) (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 013C51A898C for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagv1 with SMTP id v1so114120948lag.3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ae4ydzH6W6vpEnHCoXO05OFKASlyC2zqnNCycOSN3k4=; b=eqOiV1xNNd9zFpOfHol5VMF5VSXmbEqJ0z3ouxPeqeE2wgabB3Ns/O9nQbCJnl4mVV udBEe/XPc3JXt2gJLP3bmUOzfY1bLz5eM/ysZAdFuCpwDuCSYcRjvC7ePskk8GRCq/+T tUgGdoRZVd4kcgcVjucJ57JwtAwjdn2hGryh+Sym9+F6eWYZqm90zs7mtIhx9toRve8F JipOmvdYG02q/CrtcXv97Ge1Bpxai4KNXO4RCHimvkhWjx01spmFd2trleU25xDS7U1O tIqyMUZmwqYKHbYDM3bvzHDtXr/85WZRQ6lCbG3y9xJvRgNnjvaY5Fvf++JMAOcQXu7T H2WQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.87.70 with SMTP id v6mr4035738laz.30.1429481242403; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.154.168 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00f701d07a80$44770e00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <BY1PR0501MB14303A3E86F750CF628B7234A50E0@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BY1PR0501MB143031F1768A8854BA4CB30EA5E70@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAFqGwGuKaR-pRiCS9hnzD0mGmY1dRWd2LANgaBf4MJdT+MYRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <001901d0786b$0c1ceb40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAFqGwGsq2hZOnQWpzZuwvqAnGvNdmkE3bUkxk6LS9NZ6VOf10Q@mail.gmail.com> <00f701d07a80$44770e00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 15:07:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFqGwGuxK85W3anJ6omabHw+16HhUtSdw_yrsdt-weS1Z-abNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c363ccaaa93205141b0905"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/oufMLVMGuel8Tazl3WggGjG33QY>
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:07:27 -0000

Hi Tom,

Please see in-line with [NOBO].

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 2:07 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Inline, and including Adrian in the reply since really I am piggybacking
> on his comment.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Nobo Akiya" <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
> To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Cc: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>; "mpls" <mpls@ietf.org>;
> <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>;
> <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 6:23 PM
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Although we have added this text after the list/bullet items in
> section 3.2:
> >
> >    If a responder LSR receives a Reply Mode Order TLV which does not
> >    comply to the rules described above, then the responder LSR MUST
> >    ignore the Reply Mode Order TLV.
> >
> > You are right, it doesn't cover the case where a receiver (the
> > initiator LSR) receives an MPLS echo reply with a Reply Mode Order
> > TLV. Perhaps above text should be changed to:
> >
> >    If an LSR receives a Reply Mode Order TLV which does not
> >    comply to the rules described above, then the LSR MUST
> >    ignore the Reply Mode Order TLV.
> >
> > Will that address your first comment?
>
> <tp>
>
> Yes but ... I think that it is a change of meaning.  Is is enough just
> to ignore the TLV or should the whole PDU be discarded?  I find it
> difficult to know but don't feel strongly about that choice so will go
> with what you suggest.
>
> </tp>
>

[NOBO] I see where you are coming from. We explicitly made the Reply Mode
Order TLV an optional TLV (i.e., requests code point from 32768-49161).
There are still many ways one can behave when a received optional TLV was
"bad", but let's not get into that with this thread. Instead, let me just
state that dropping just this optional TLV when the TLV is bad is not a
wrong behavior. We will respin the document to update the text to cover the
"initiator" side as well. Thanks for catching this!

>
> > Regarding your second comment (3.2-6), is that really too ambiguous?
> > To me, that text translates to following implementations:
> >
> > - When sending a Reply Mode Order TLV, 2 or more Reply Mode values
> > shall be present.
> >
> > - When receiving a Reply Mode Order TLV, accept 1 or more Reply Mode
> values.
>
> <tp>
>
> Again, that is a change of meaning to me.  SHALL, if not shall, is the
> same as MUST while  'SHOULD', in our jargon, says there are reasons
> (not) to do it and RFC commonly spell out such reasons for doing so.  So
> the NEW text below is a change IMHO.  But again, I have no strong
> feelings about it.
>
> Tom Petch
> </tp>
>
>
[NOBO] Ok, probably best to just say "MUST have at least one Reply Mode
value" (and remove the SHOULD portion of this bullet/item) to avoid any
confusion. We will update this document with this change.

Thanks!

-Nobo


> > If you think the text really should be updated, then we can change
> (3.2-6):
> >
> > [OLD]
> >
> >    6.  Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode
> value,
> >        and SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values.
> >
> > [NEW]
> >
> >    6.  Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode
> value.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > -Nobo
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:30 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nobo
> > >
> > > I was struck by Adrian's comment which, if I understand correctly,
> was
> > > what to do if a MUST or SHOULD is violated and as I see it, I am
> unclear
> > > if this was addressed.
> > >
> > > Thus 3.2 2) what should a recipient do when the echo reply does
> contain
> > > a Reply Mode Order TLV ?
> > >
> > > Or in 6), 'SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values' - when may
> > > that SHOULD be violated and if it is, does that render the TLV not
> valid
> > > as described in 4?
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Nobo Akiya" <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
> > > To: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>
> > > Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>; <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>;
> > > <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for
> > > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Ross,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for Shepherding this document.
> > > >
> > > > We (authors) have posted the revision (-02) addressing all
> comments
> > > > received during the LC of this document (thanks to those who
> provided
> > > > comments!).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > -Nobo, on behalf of authors
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  This working group last call has ended, with sufficient support
> and
> > > no
> > > > > opposition. There have however been a number of comments
> received.
> > > Thanks
> > > > > to everyone who took the time to review the draft and comment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Authors, please update the draft in response to the comments.
> After
> > > this
> > > > > is done, I will submit the document for publication.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Ross
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ross
> > > Callon
> > > > > *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 10:04 AM
> > > > > *To:* mpls@ietf.org
> > > > > *Cc:* Loa Andersson; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> > > > > *Subject:* [mpls] working group last call for
> > > > > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Working Group,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is to initiate a working group last call on
> > > > > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because this WGLC will span the IETF in Dallas, it will be
> extended
> > > to
> > > > > three weeks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list
> > > (mpls@ietf.org).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no IPR disclosures against this document. All the
> authors
> > > have
> > > > > stated that they
> > > > >
> > > > > are not aware of any IPR that relates to this draft.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This working group last call ends Friday  April 10, 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ross
> > > > >
> > > > > for the MPLS WG chairs
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > --------
> > >
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > mpls mailing list
> > > > mpls@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email