Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Sun, 10 April 2016 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7779E12D5AD; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 06:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 LcPFXCJ9dSXL; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 06:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4210312D5AE; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 06:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=941; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460296007; x=1461505607; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=TEmYboNSsTxrsIrAYivz0XRkrchAtIQH9XnJayVb7lE=; b=kFOs2I7JS33NHoj2+CvGzlNj0K4EKudrd7k3idEXRHlKShWZz/LNNNVC ej/Mp9mt9tc3uO4r6mbL++pRDIjsfA5vgj76PVZ08YAIuxOsw7agtVsJV v3jpC3xPY9/zFnxQy58mRwETd/z+yHc1I9afXmCpgpH6t77Xafyn1hMjD k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AqAgAaWApX/5ldJa1cgzeBUAaud4lJg?= =?us-ascii?q?g8BDYFzhg0CgSE4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RCAQEEOj8QAgEINhAhESUCBAENBYgSAxK?= =?us-ascii?q?2OQ2FHwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARWGIYRLgkGHVAEEkxmEOjEBjBaBd?= =?us-ascii?q?YFnjSaGH4Erh1sBHgEBQoIygTVsiS1+AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,462,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="89856013"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Apr 2016 13:46:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3ADkkEW013110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:46:46 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:46:45 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:46:45 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRkOChUIDXC97tPUm+npeu/kPy1J+DXpQA
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:46:45 +0000
Message-ID: <D32FDF76.11DEDD%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <20160105031027.29211.97181.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <570679AF.2030101@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <570679AF.2030101@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.180.57]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B70FFA1971265B43937520891C58D02D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/vag0sd11RMx4DtS4JQUucDErA30>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 10 Apr 2016 13:46:48 -0000

Thanks Stewart, that updated text looks good to me.

Alvaro.



On 4/7/16, 12:15 PM, "Stewart Bryant" <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>* As far as I can tell, there is no restriction for having both a Return
>>Address object and the URO in the same query, right?  If so, and if the
>>intent is *not* to update RFC6374, then it seems (from the text in
>>RFC6374) that the URO would never be used (if a Return Address object is
>>also present).
>
>I have added the following text which should resolve any ambiguity:
>
>To prevent any ambiguity as to which address the Responder needs to
>reply to, an MPLS-PLDM message containing a URO MUST NOT include an
>RFC6374 Return Address TLV (TLV 1). Additionally, the method of
>constructing the return address from the Source Address TLV (TLV 130)
>described in Section 3.5.2 of RFC6374 MUST NOT be used to construct to
>an Query message that contains a URO.