Re: [mpls] R: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533)

[Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>]

	I agree with your two points below Ben. Sorry I didn't respond last week. 

	--Tom



> Italo,
> 
> The fact the proposed text change originated from ITU-T doesn't change my opinion that the current text is sufficient.
> 
> However, if I'm the only one making any noise then I'm happy to concede that I don't care enough to make this into an issue as I don't believe changing the text will materially affect how folks implement section layers. So if I'm on my own feel free to use either the text in the original errata or your proposal below I don't mind which.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5 Oct 2010, at 21:56, BUSI, ITALO (ITALO) wrote:
> 
>> Ben,
>> 
>> I am copying the ITU-T ad-hoc mailing list because this discussion is very relevant also to the ITU-T work.
>> 
>> A bit of background information: the main intent of this Errata is to address one of the two ITU-T comments that have not been addressed before the publication of RFC5960.
>> 
>> The text proposed in the Errata is an exact copy of the text proposed in the ITU-T LS that reflects the discussion done during the last ITU-T SG15 plenary meeting (with the contribution of IETF experts).
>> 
>> I think we can resolve the comment with different text as long as it can be agreed by both ITU-T and IETF.
>> 
>> A possible alternative could be:
>> 
>> "
>> A section MAY be required to provide a mechanism for multiplexing MPLS with other protocols. In this case, a means of identifying the type of payload it carries MUST be provided.
>> "
>> 
>> Any other opinion/view?
>> 
>> Thanks, Italo
>> 
>>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>>> Da: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Per conto di
>>> Benjamin Niven-Jenkins
>>> Inviato: giovedì 30 settembre 2010 2.19
>>> A: RFC Errata System
>>> Cc: BUSI, ITALO (ITALO); [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Oggetto: Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533)
>>> 
>>> While the intent of reported errata is technically correct I'm somewhat
>>> torn between whether I think it should be rejected, or whether I don't
>>> care.
>>> 
>>> My thinking is:
>>> 
>>> The errata is technically correct because a corner case does exist where a
>>> section layer that doesn't support higher layer protocol multiplexing can
>>> still be used to support MPLS-TP in some scenarios.
>>> 
>>> I don't like the proposed replacement text because the original text is
>>> placing a requirement on the section layer technology and I think it is
>>> reasonable to say "if you want your section layer to work with MPLS-TP it
>>> MUST do/support X", however I don't think it's reasonable to say "if you
>>> want your section layer to work with MPLS-TP it MAY have to do X" (which
>>> is essentially the change the proposed text makes) because it leaves it
>>> unclear as to what is actually required from the section layer which
>>> practically reduces to section layers having to support X anyway so it
>>> becomes a (implicit) MUST in any case.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore the original text only states that a section layer MUST have a
>>> means of identifying the type of payload. If a section layer does not
>>> support multiplexing then it has an implicit means of identifying the
>>> payload by the interface over which the payload arrived and therefore it
>>> meets the requirement as stated by the original text.
>>> 
>>> Ben
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 18:39, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5960,
>>>> "MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture".
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5960&eid=2533
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Type: Technical
>>>> Reported by: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>
>>>> 
>>>> Section: 3.2
>>>> 
>>>> Original Text
>>>> -------------
>>>> A section MUST provide a means of identifying the type of payload it
>>>> carries.
>>>> 
>>>> Corrected Text
>>>> --------------
>>>> A section MAY be required to provide a mechanism for multiplexing MPLS
>>>> with other protocols.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Notes
>>>> -----
>>>> This change is intended to clarify that providing a multiplexing
>>> capability for a section layer is optional.
>>>> 
>>>> See https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/916/
>>>> 
>>>> Instructions:
>>>> -------------
>>>> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC5960 (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-04)
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Title               : MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture
>>>> Publication Date    : August 2010
>>>> Author(s)           : D. Frost, Ed., S. Bryant, Ed., M. Bocci, Ed.
>>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>>> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
>>>> Area                : Routing
>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>