Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 2C4DC1295FC; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:49:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 OOyH4FWoavKH; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AC5F1295EE; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 62so5779571oih.2; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:49:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VL9y1zkszBFDXhYmT1zz5L7+RhnQXsmpD791i2vGOQQ=; b=M0NB1WK4ZRBcVM5FAu5ztC5gqs9y8L8qWHJVpx5Y826o+0IFbN2x33g/eXzDyPSZI+ EcYIuBzllId4peJXywAuEWO2k3qiUIVDQjHZJP5OYoQnnReLHx4c8XDG8hJG4VNpkzGD bS6kSY6B/lc8QbipUQduXhHJB76aAPoVegPc1IlHKAiXzQt17ID8LqW248jdISG3vvZz Y6N4ZHrOIwYUARkDLT+oDcg3qq8iaTWvRuDlzSqox7DKUKhhnU0/6RYbhUD1TN0e8xJO 6nND+Ld2wut97d2rxBrLNmZggxEwfeJX7fDoEZHMwiHeINn6Y5swqZyhrj1Fj+THiU7Z ImmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VL9y1zkszBFDXhYmT1zz5L7+RhnQXsmpD791i2vGOQQ=; b=hNAXell5OUqzB5Lff8fdliRb2ffwEThE2oQYrlyp2u9saExBiYg4TPhj8Ihpi/sEa3 tX/gBXdDpXjuJoNZKWwdH3NmJOesz5QQJsakl/D4GV0C8Uvr5NLyCm+zh4o8ONiHTaCi pXmQCAdPnelKSQWZ4J/gJICwjvn5XcLyWP3/IF2ai/PqPBHXQKg+gjFs2VoW0J8CKqvh kEdbQNtjsvAVT9ecywdBUpuxlaQtpSA4jfTBPI6GT/xtY3roeD5EN5AFwKtcvCq8weUK 9qcc264YfL2PPjSQTwiwblbF+ogeo1awp3D2i7cUE1stL/8vwcNIG5YEc5gnxbWSuU4m FpOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lzQp/wc82XgjpFfuNrkh567Ly/5v24oiwCk3+VUYqxSPWff0gAwex17sHyA1Glea46PLgOGV+A/6/PxA==
X-Received: by 10.202.232.210 with SMTP id f201mr842675oih.60.1488908980652; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:49:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:49:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148840955223.7128.11294700301996460693.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148840955223.7128.11294700301996460693.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:49:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUos4j31aag48nUSN-m5u1dUKfgdAeb-mEsbqLHVZLJ+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11407b32e51611054a27a237
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/xPVHhIZgd6izhizdhSD45v49bDw>
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with DISCUSS and 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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:49:43 -0000

Hi Alia, et. al,
the new version of the draft has been uploaded. It includes the changes
we've discussed as well as addresses comments we've received from Mirja,
Spencer, Ben, and Benjamin.
Thank you for your help and patience.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for a clear document.  I think that this should be a
> straightforward Discuss to better clarify.
>
> In Section 4.8.1, it says "The RTM Set sub-object contains an ordered
> list, from egress node to
>    ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path." but the
> sub-TLVs (as most clearly
> indicated by "4.8.1.3.  Unnumbered Interface Sub-TLV" are actually meant
> to be a list of interfaces.
> It isn't clear whether these are supposed to be the egress interface, the
> ingress interface, or just any
> interface - or why sending just a Router ID wouldn't be sufficient.
> There is no indication as to whether
> it is ok to include both the IPv4 and IPv6 address Sub-TLVs for the same
> node or how to select which one
> to use.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1) I am disappointed that the sub-TLV needed for an OSPFv3 Extended LSA
> isn't defined.  While I understand that a normative reference isn't
> desirable - instead of "left for future study", it would be better to say
> that the sub-TLV should use the same format as in Sec 4.3 and that the
> type allocation and full details are left to a future document.   This is
> exactly how gaps are created for networks running only IPv6.   If
> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-13 were not waiting for implementations
> and had a clear time-frame for how and when to progress, this would also
> be a Discuss.
>
>
>