Re: [mpls] Fw: I-D Action: draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 27 September 2015 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7B11ACE52 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 05:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 jmcOKJFdwHBQ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 05:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CBF51ACE51 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 05:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [112.205.66.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25B6B1801487; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:10:16 +0200 (CEST)
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "naikumar@cisco.com" <naikumar@cisco.com>, "aldrin.ietf@gmail.com" <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, "mach.chen@huawei.com" <mach.chen@huawei.com>
References: <20150926205215.13666.17143.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <DB3PR03MB0780A8DC1B838F19F1C8056C9D400@DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <5607DC9E.7090404@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:10:06 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR03MB0780A8DC1B838F19F1C8056C9D400@DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/zeXx5eatZ_1XkM4WkP29wwkolQ8>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Fw: I-D Action: draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 27 Sep 2015 12:10:29 -0000

Sasha,

The directives (or maybe ideas to work with) that the authors have is
basically to "do it all". I will let the authors answer to the
specifics, but one of the things I asked for is to get a first version
(we are now on the third) out to start up the discussion. That one
RFC or another is missing, is not necessarily a plan, but we know
that this has to be a wg wide effort to get it right.

I've already told the authors that we expect a f2f discussion in
Yokohama.

/Loa

On 2015-09-27 14:12, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have a comment regarding draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.
>
> According to the draft, its purpose is "take LSP Ping to an Internet  Standard". As part of this work the authors address all the outstanding Errata to the original RFC 4379, and update the references.
>
> I fully agree with the goal that the authors have set to themselves.
>
> However, I have noticed that there is quite a long list of RFCs  that update RFC 4379, and it would be nice to understand whether these updates have been incorporated or not.
>
> Specifically:
> 1.  RFC 6424 states that it "deprecates the Downstream Mapping TLV in favor of a new TLV".
> 2. RFC 6426 extends applicability of LSP Ping to MPLS-TP thus introducing new  address types and new TLVs
> 3. RFC 6289  extends LSP Ping to PWs signaled with LDP sessions running on top of IPv6 and introduces new sub-TLVs
> 4. RFC  7506 clarifies the use of IPv6 Router Alert option for LSP Ping.
> 5. RFC  7537 has introduced new IANA  registries for various aspects of LSP Ping.
>
> Neither of these RFCs is mentioned anywhere in draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.
>
> Does this mean that if/when the draft is published as an RFC, all the  documents  updating RFC 4379 would equally update a new RFC?
>
> And what would happen to all the TLVs, sub-TLVs and procedures that are defined in these documents?
>
> I honestly do not know what is the right way to proceed here, but I think that silence is definitely not the best way to address the problem.
>
> My 2c,
> Sasha
> ________________________________________
> From: I-D-Announce <i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:52 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>
>          Title           : Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures
>          Authors         : Carlos Pignataro
>                            Nagendra Kumar
>                            Sam Aldrin
>                            Mach(Guoyi) Chen
>          Filename        : draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02.txt
>          Pages           : 49
>          Date            : 2015-09-26
>
> Abstract:
>     This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism that can be
>     used to detect data plane failures in Multi-Protocol Label Switching
>     (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  There are two parts to this
>     document: information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo
>     reply" for the purposes of fault detection and isolation, and
>     mechanisms for reliably sending the echo reply.
>
>     This document obsoletes RFC 4379.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-02
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>