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

["Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)" <[e-mail]>]

Tom and Carlos,
Thanks. It seems we are in sync.

Mustapha.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 6:18 AM
> To: t.petch <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-09.txt
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Indeed. My reply implied (although it didn't spell out) that this is specified for the
> DDMAP (and not the deprecated DSMAP). That's why the protocol field definition
> happens in a sub-TLV.
> 
> Let us make the changes in the doc and then we can discuss over something more
> concrete.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
> Excuze typofraphicak errows
> 
> > On Nov 29, 2016, at 05:51, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> > One other point I raised was that spring-lsp refers throughout to
> > Downstream Mapping TLV and not to Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
> >
> > Mustapha assumed that these should all be changed.  I am unsure about
> > this - is spring-lsp expected to work with Downstream Mapping TLV as
> > specified in RFC4379?  If not, then I think that spring-lsp should
> > spell that out.
> >
> > Either way, the wording changes to spring-lsp need some thought since
> > Downstream Mapping TLV does not have subTLVs and Downstream Detailed
> > Mapping TLV does.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 1:53 PM
> >
> >> Thank you Mustapha for catching these, and Tom and Mach for the
> > follow-ups.
> >>
> >> There are three changes needed to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping
> > based based on this discussion:
> >>
> >>
> >>  1.  In Section 10.1, update the references to {Section 4.1, Section
> > 4.2, Section 4.1} -> {Section 5.1, Section 5.2, Section 5.1}
> >>  2.  Create a Section 10.2, create a registry for the "Protocol field
> > of the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV",
> > registering values 0-4, and asking for TBD5 and TBD6. If this happens
> > in this draft instead of 4379bis, I believe it is OK.
> >>  3.  Create a Section 10.3, requesting error code TBD.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> ―
> >> Carlos Pignataro, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> "Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make
> > myself sound more photosynthesis."
> >>
> >> On Nov 24, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Mustapha.
> >