Re: [mpls] Question on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.txt

Hi Mustapha and Tom,

Good catch, Mustapha!

Indeed, there is no such a registry request for the protocol of the label Stack sub-TLV in the original 4379 and this bis document and it should have been one IMHO. 

I guess when wrote and published rfc4379, the authors might believe that the listed protocols (Unknown, Static, BGP, LDP, RSVP-TE) are sufficient and cover all cases and no need for an IANA registry. But obviously Segment Routing is an exception :-). It's a pity we did not find it when do the bis document.

The 4379bis has already been in the RFC Queue, seems it's a bit late to update document. I see there are two ways to address the issue, 1) to ask the RFC editor to update bis document directly 2) or request such a registry in draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping.

Best regards,
Mach 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui, Mustapha
> (Nokia - CA)
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 5:33 AM
> To: t.petch; mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.txt
> 
> Tom,
> Since the Downstream Mapping TLV is deprecated in
> draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.txt, then draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping should be
> only be discussing changes required to the Downstream Detailed Mapping
> (DDMAP) TLV 20 and should be referencing draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.txt
> indeed.
> 
> As for the following:
> "
> But the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV has a Label Stack subTLV so adding
> values to that is just an action for IANA and is not an update to rfc4379bis and
> you can find this registry on the IANA website at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-par
> ameters.xml#sub-tlv-20
> "
> 
> You see my issue, from this URL link it appears that IANA is not maintaining the
> values for the 'protocol' field of the Label stack sub-TLV 2 of DDMAP TLV 20.
> Now draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping is adding protocol values 5 (OSPF) and 6
> (ISIS) but it cannot action IANA because it does not maintain the 'protocol' field
> values.
> 
> Mustapha.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 12:37 PM
> > To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA) <mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com>;
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.txt
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)" <mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com>
> > To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; <mpls@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 4:28 PM
> >
> > Thanks Tom.
> >
> > So, draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping when it becomes RFC should state
> > that it is updating the RFC which will come out of
> draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.txt.
> >
> > <tp>
> >
> > Mmmm my first reply was too hasty; wrong in fact.  I was looking at
> > spring-lsp- ping where it defined the new subTLVs of TLVs 1, 16, 20
> > but you were asking about  TLV type 20 Downstream Detailed Mapping.
> >
> > Stepping back, if all that an I-D or RFC does is add entries to
> > existing registries, then that is no longer considered an update to
> > the earlier RFC.  A former AD for mpls was very keen on this approach
> > and I would say that it is now the accepted approach within the IETF.
> > But we may get an AD, or WG Chair perhaps, that takes a contrary view but I
> would be surprised to see that.
> >
> > Note that 4359bis is not even a reference for the spring I-D at present.
> >
> > But s.7.4, the spring I-D says
> > "   This section updates the procedure defined in Step 6 of section 4.4.
> >    of [RFC4379]"
> > and if that is not an update, I do not know what is:-)  Should this
> > also apply to rfc4379bis?
> >
> > Looking more closely at the I-D, I think that s.10.1 IANA
> > Considerations are ... well ...rubbish?  They reference sections 4.1,
> > 4.2, 4.3 for the new subTLVs, which is clearly wrong; should be 5.1, 5.2, 5.3.
> >
> > s.7.4 has error code TBD with no request for TBD to be given a value.
> >
> > s.6 adds TBD5 and TBD6 to the Downstream Mapping TLV with no request
> > for
> > TBD5 and TBD6 to be given values.  But is this section referring to
> > the Downstream Mapping TLV of RFC4379 or the TLV20 Downstream
> Detailed
> > Mapping (which is what you asked about) or both? I think that the
> > authors may be a little confused here.
> >
> > The Downstream Mapping TLV has no subTLVs so adding values to the
> > Downstream Mapping TLV is an update to 4379bis (or RFC4379 (or both)).
> >
> > But the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV has a Label Stack subTLV so
> > adding values to that is just an action for IANA and is not an update
> > to rfc4379bis and you can find this registry on the IANA website at
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping
> > -p
> > arameters.xml#sub-tlv-20
> >
> > which URL my pesky e-mail client will split in two but hopefully you
> > can put the pieces back together again.
> >
> > Of course, as the spring I-D stands, then the registry will not be
> > updated with TBD5 and TBD6 but doubtless that will be fixed.
> >
> > Note that in the spring I-D s.5.1 and s.5.3, OSPF and ISIS are 1 and 2
> > respectively while in s.6 they must be something different; all
> > designed to increase the probability of error:-)
> >
> > Finally, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16 and 21" sub-registry will be an
> > obvious reference to an MPLS expert, less so to the average reader.
> >
> > Sorry about misleading you earlier.  As we always say, I-Ds are a work in
> progress.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > Mustapha.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 6:25 AM
> > > To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA) <mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com>;
> > > mpls@ietf.org
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)"
> > > <mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com>
> > > To: <mpls@ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 10:05 PM
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > > Can someone point me to where are held the IANA allocation for the
> > values in the
> > > 'protocol' field of the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream
> > > Detailed
> > Mapping
> > > TLV?
> > >
> > > There is draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-01 which is adding IS-IS
> > > and
> > OSPF as new
> > > values into this field but I fail to find where these are maintained.
> > >
> > > <tp>
> > >
> > > My reading would be that there is no such registry.  The new sub-TLV
> > appear at
> > >
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping
> > -p
> > > arameters.xml#sub-tlv-1-16-21
> > > where for e.g. 34 the reference is to the I-D that you cite, with no
> > more details.
> > >
> > > Not all names and numbers appear in an IANA registry; setting up and
> > maintaining
> > > a registry takes work and sometimes it is not worth it.  If the only
> > use is local to the
> > > one field and only in the one RFC, then it may not be worth it.
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Mustapha.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > --
> > > --------
> > >
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > mpls mailing list
> > > > mpls@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> > > >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls