Re: [mpls] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

[[e-mail]]

Hi Loa,

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I do understand your input in regards of referring the code points to this document instead of the RFC's where they are actually described.

A bit of the history this document went through. IANA requested a formal document for which this document was created for. Giving the context and use cases. The IANA section of this document has then been reviewed by IE doctors and updated accordingly. 

Please correct me if I am wrong. Looking at the IANA IPFIX registry, the references are always to documents where the values are actually defined. So I do think that the original RFC references are correct, but I am not the expert.

I will take your input and double check when this document will receive the final IE doctor review which I am going to request before going last call.

Best Wishes
Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

Thomas,

I have a question on the IANA section of this document.

For every new code point, e.g.:

    This document specifies three additional code points for IS-IS, OSPv2
    and OSPFv3 Segment Routing extension in the existing sub-registry
    "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the "IPFIX Information
    Elements" and one new "IPFIX Information Element" with a new sub-
    registry in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" name
    space.

             ----------------------------------------------
             | Value|       Description       | Reference |
             |--------------------------------------------|
             | TBD1 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing  |  RFC8665  |
             |--------------------------------------------|
             | TBD2 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing  |  RFC8666  |
             |--------------------------------------------|
             | TBD3 | IS-IS Segment Routing   |  RFC8667  |
             ----------------------------------------------

       Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX Information Element #46" SubRegistry

you put in a reference to old documents that does not define these code points. Shouldn't the reference say "this document"?

I think this is true for almost all references you have put into the IANA section.

For the new sub-registry:

               -----------------------------------------
               | Value |  Description      | Reference |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD5  | Unknown SID Type  |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD6  | Prefix-SID        |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD7  | Node-SID          |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD8  | Anycast-SID       |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD9  | Adjacency-SID     |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD10 | LAN-Adjacency-SID |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD11 | PeerNode-SID      |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD12 | PeerAdj-SID       |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD13 | PeerSet-SID       |  RFC8402  |
               |---------------------------------------|
               | TBD14 | Binding-SID       |  RFC8402  |
               -----------------------------------------

         Figure 3: New "IPFIX Information Element #TBD4" SubRegistry

You will have to define Registration Procedues!

/Loa

On 28/07/2020 16:11, [e-mail] wrote:
> Dear mpls,
> 
> I presented the following draft
> 
> Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow 
> Information Export (IPFIX)
> 
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftool
> s.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04&amp;data=0
> 2%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C1de9406dba0e422fa27508d836bb1ee2
> %7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637319524588913415&amp;s
> data=KVpjfCOYwZoJen3uAqID0sK%2FrWIujm4q7vDigug2%2B9A%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> at the spring working group at IETF 108 yesterday
> 
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> ietf.org%2Fproceedings%2F108%2Fslides%2Fslides-108-spring-ip-flow-info
> rmation-export-ipfix-00.pdf&amp;data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.
> com%7C1de9406dba0e422fa27508d836bb1ee2%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b55
> 7a1%7C1%7C0%7C637319524588913415&amp;sdata=U9jmYfa0Kxd7ewrOmAgBpoiFLFg
> JkytxRvGCAX5egZs%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> and today at OPSAWG where I call for adoption.
> 
> This draft adds additional segment routing code points for in the IANA 
> IPFIX registry for IS-IS, OPSFv2 and OPSF v3 and segment routing SID 
> types to gain further insights into the MPLS-SR forwarding-plane.
> 
> I have been asked to not only gather feedback from spring and opsawg 
> but also from lsr and mpls working groups since these code points are 
> related to link state routing protocols and mpls data plane.
> 
> I am looking forward to your feedback and input.
> 
> Best Wishes
> 
> Thomas Graf
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&amp;data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40
> swisscom.com%7C1de9406dba0e422fa27508d836bb1ee2%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9bee
> c35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637319524588913415&amp;sdata=Rk6q0lYc3%2BZCF%2B
> FaKjdEDB0hdvku7RkzsMLGPDLQ4y8%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 

-- 

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