Re: [mpls] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-03

"Adrian Farrel" <> Tue, 12 March 2019 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103A7130EC5; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:04:17 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkydmLkHzuuz; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:04:13 -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 084D3128B14; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2CK4Aio019856; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:04:10 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047582204A; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:04:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2CE322044; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:04:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2CK46X1017539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:04:08 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'Spencer Dawkins at IETF' <>
Cc: 'Datatracker on behalf of Martin Stiemerling' <>,,, 'IETF list' <>,
References: <> <020a01d4d39b$4e92c460$ebb84d20$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:04:05 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <00a901d4d90e$c0375bd0$40a61370$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AA_01D4D90E.C039CCD0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQH2Qj+Sv2A2/J/rvZAZjZIPktu+aQIdMieTAy0HY8Wlm0RhUA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--27.312-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--27.312-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--27.311900-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: H0/uSqZo4D7xIbpQ8BhdbOYAh37ZsBDCNU8z+tFJHR39k2xa9AhjgwQy VB/q66fr5NBvEMa3vVUCq6hMZ+k+fgeK3sUEdcSOzFOoeBdH/n0xRS4RlA/AFgmvtxE5nD8S9vz s8AUUikXv7KQvOHjFKBuyZsb18LW9SSQ7jOqms07Kl4yJoI+fG0Crr/LkAQ46knle09V58D1WFs MQfbcNE16FTN8b0aVfeJ4fXQORQoe1TiWqZWCojwArNgt5xpQYTJDl9FKHbrlqv/+QKNcPLlm82 OBgNpuLsVkaYcPQSsZIsgeX/PG9ZUc6H4e1kWXPVoDlQpf4TdWVZfG8cr6tXiHbfQoyuojp8z70 XDTUjsZHpIHZv4zxgUmlX2scVfePArfIDVjQDX7BtFDYGmaWKuq/uWzz2rh3+TdKNkxxkWSoBV9 sc+TYx+I+Ja+Fp+EYrBBSnn/GVMan+dP7GcjVHbqQyAveNtg60zEP/d7xPF1G2qlFbyxbImpHKt kQBynKY+p2L1EQN50NunoWbihTV/4wKFk6gUul2x/FmlC/aoz8Xh935PYSDpIC4CO/S0X+ImSkg xYdxsJ4XRigqDnz6lE8dwK9bOBtlwV2iaAfSWcURSScn+QSXlkMvWAuahr8mI+faDiwdhpheV+c rsE6IQwWxr7XDKH8EA93lsCV7S6v/HAzLdfiFzcnhjA8SIxZh3ITiqqSr12/JuXBqqNGYw==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-03
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:04:18 -0000

Thanks Spencer.


My initial reaction was to be a bit snippy about this, but I’ll try to behave :-)


The intention is that MPLS-SR-over-IP utilises MPLS-over-UDP as documented in RFC 7510.


I think (and hope) that section 5 of RFC 7510 is an integral part of RFC 7510, and so is automatically part of any further specification that uses the mechanisms defined in RFC 7510.


In my opinion, to would be wrong to single out one section of RFC 7510 for special mention in this document since to do so might be taken to apply that other sections are not equally important.





From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> 
Sent: 12 March 2019 19:42
To: Adrian Farrel <>
Cc: Datatracker on behalf of Martin Stiemerling <>;;; IETF list <>;
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-03


Hi, Adrian, 


On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:35 PM Adrian Farrel < <> > wrote:

Hi Martin,

Good to hear from you.

> I have only one request: From a Transport Area perspective,
> it would be good to emphasize RFC 7510 and its details about
> MPLS over UDP.

Happy to accommodate this request.

But what do you have in mind?

There are references to 7510, in the Introduction and in the first two use cases in Section 2.
Then, the packet forwarding procedures in Section 3.2 begin with a reference to 7510 as well.
And there a couple more references in the document.



I haven't seen a response back from Martin, and this doc is on the agenda in a couple of days, so I'll try to read Martin's mind, and you can both tell me what I'm getting wrong. So can everyone else, of course ...


The character string "7510" does appear in a bunch of places in this draft, but what I'm not seeing is a statement of whether the congestion control considerations in Section 5 of RFC 7510 do, or do not, apply to MPLS-SR over UDP, as with MPLS over UDP. That might be obvious to MPLS-SR types, and it might be especially obvious to you, because you were author for this draft and responsible AD for RFC 7510 until after it entered the RFC Editor queue, but I wonder if it might be useful to Those Less Skilled In The Art. 

I'll ballot No Objection/still discussing TSV-ART review with author, and you can reply here, or there, as seems appropriate. 

Make good choices, of course ;-)