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

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 9:33 PM

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-p
arameters.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.

<tp>
Well, no, I disagree with that interpretation.  IANA has not been asked
to do anything and so has not done anything so IANA is doing just fine.

IANA assigns values once an I-D has gone through its stages, WG Last
Call, AD Review, IETF Last Call, IESG Review and is on its way to the
RFC Editor; only then is it safe to assume that the I-D is stable so we
are a long way off that, and in fact, the I-D at present does not even
contain a request to IANA to assign a value so that will need fixing
sooner or later if IANA is to assign a value.

There is an exception to this process, when a value is required early on
to permit interoperability testing, and the IANA website tells you that
this has been done for subTLV 34, 35, 36.

But this has NOT been done for values for OSPF and ISIS for TLV Type 20
and you would be very wrong IMHO to assume at this stage what those
values might be.

Tom Petch

Mustapha.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 12:37 PM
> To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.txt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)" <[e-mail]>
> To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> 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:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 6:25 AM
> > To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA) <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)"
<[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > --------
> >