Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 01 February 2017 04:29 UTC
Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0DE129C88; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:29:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 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=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 xsLgThJapxJP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C518D129C87; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:29:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11109; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485923347; x=1487132947; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Ciq/s2MeY2ljcAtav/WvKowVQZKMLL+m/1tsRX2y5lo=; b=ZeOHxD9xlgzxWPDx8lW9iT7uFvlsuSnT7qf98kFKZfWPhWKrjulaJdVh N5FX7lXKjqutkmyXwo8KjNb41VfGdMb45FD5WF2KXrlp0QrBRXUmBgJh8 nDrmzNuc1xkzkz1Jaqjg/rHE9+Rv775B5P/3Rb0XbNTKRUd72vZm8H1Wg c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AWAQBrY5FY/5ldJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1NhgQkHjVmSB4gKixqCD4INKoIdAYNaAoI4PxgBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIRpAQEBAwFuCwwEAgEIEQQBAQEnByERFAkIAgQBDQUJEgSJNwMNCA6uTYc8DYNqAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYs6glE+gRmGCQWJA5IeOAGNa4QXgXmFFYltiCeCAYhXAR84gUsVGCOEOx+BYXWFYYEwgQwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,318,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="378315351"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Feb 2017 04:29:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v114T5Rb008803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 04:29:05 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:29:04 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:29:04 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
Thread-Index: AQHSe+8VLnP65AUFpk+lTQqsxpcwj6FTz8yA//+Nd4A=
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 04:29:04 +0000
Message-ID: <D4B6A3F3.9B620%acee@cisco.com>
References: <f56d7fa5-8a6a-69fe-2779-9c11e5e85e5b@pi.nu> <d4ba0355c0db469ebbbb896717c5f911@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXQxvg9k0f75f72PTGkVtQ0z3TUsMGjb38_E8eKvscX6w@mail.gmail.com> <3fa098bb1ca644e98eee3c470d8c05a4@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWZZmHuwy3xWQxRLz5jTLYpvFd-NADfuE_TygVk=JDbYA@mail.gmail.com> <51a1f73605a44fafbab0a293c868bc88@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CA+RyBmV2OEp_TzSqMxH8pWxBP4sihLoY91fnSZ1eLgcxO35HzA@mail.gmail.com> <2baf22cab3c747498221800e7775fab4@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268540187F922@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmWBTxiA35uBG6icAaxkMkLp=Vr662oYdE8Qse8UqeHhwQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmWBTxiA35uBG6icAaxkMkLp=Vr662oYdE8Qse8UqeHhwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.125.51]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <2BB41702B35D6B439B349B5E7FF94E9B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/voJPV7BpGYxfqndNtHZttKvO_14>
Cc: "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@ietf.org>, Isis-wg <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 04:29:10 -0000
Hi Greg, Changes look good to me also. Thanks, Acee On 1/31/17, 7:18 PM, "Greg Mirsky" <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Uma, Acee, Les, et. al, >attached please find diff and the updated version. I think I've got it >right by now. >Greatly appreciate your comments. > >Regards, >Greg > >On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> >wrote: > >> Had a quick look at this diff. >> >> >> >> This is about unifying the encoding parts in IGP to have a consistent >>view >> for BGP-LS encoding or keeping these separate and yet having a correct >> representation in BGP-LS for both IGPs. >> >> >> >> == >> >> With variable length bit field for Section 4.5 and fixed 4 byte value >>(as >> indicated as MUST for length) in section 4.3 - I saw a discrepancy in >> section 4.6 (BGP-LS) which is referencing section 4.3. >> >> >> >> You have multiple options to fix this: >> >> >> >> 1. Change section 4.3 to match section 4.5 (I am not sure why we >> have to have variable length for this bit field to start with in this >>case >> like rfc 7794Šbut I won¹t say much now) >> >> 2. Change Section 4.6 to represent differences in encoding section >> 4.5 and 4.3 correctly. >> >> ³Length, RTM, and Reserved fields as defined in Section 4.3.² >> >> 3. Lastly unify section 4.5 to 4.3 i.e., 4 byte value with 3 bits >> defined and 29 bits reserved. >> >> -- >> >> Uma C. >> >> >> >> *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Les Ginsberg >> (ginsberg) >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:22 AM >> *To:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org; isis-chairs@ietf.org; Isis-wg < >> isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org>; >>draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org; >> TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; TEAS WG < >> teas@ietf.org>; ospf@ietf.org; ospf-chairs@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [OSPF] Working group last call on >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> Looks good. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com >><gregimirsky@gmail.com>] >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:06 AM >> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> *Cc:* Loa Andersson; mpls@ietf.org; TEAS WG; ospf@ietf.org; Isis-wg; >> ospf-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org; >>TEAS >> WG Chairs; isis-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> >> >> Hi Les, >> >> thank you for your patience and apologies for missing it. >> >> Diff and the update been attached. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < >> ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> AlmostŠ >> >> >> >> Please change the title of Section 7.5 to ³IS-IS RTM Capability >>sub-TLV². >> >> >> >> Please change the title of Table 5 to ³IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV >> Registry Description². >> >> >> >> The common point being since this is not exclusively for TLV 22 we do >>not >> want to say ³for TLV 22². >> >> Thanx. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 11:43 PM >> >> >> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> *Cc:* Loa Andersson; mpls@ietf.org; TEAS WG; ospf@ietf.org; Isis-wg; >> ospf-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org; >>TEAS >> WG Chairs; isis-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> >> >> Hi Les, >> >> many thanks for your the most detailed suggestions. Hope I've it right. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < >> ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> Thanx for the quick turnaround. >> >> >> >> Section 4.5 (revised text) >> >> >> >> The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is >> >> advertised in a new sub-TLV which may be included in TLVs advertising >> >> Intemediate System (IS) Reachability on a specific link (TLVs 22, 23, >> 222, and 223). >> >> >> >> The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 5 >> >> >> >> 0 1 2 >> >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 ... >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... >> >> | Type | Length | RTM | ... >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... >> >> >> >> Figure 5: RTM Capability sub-TLV >> >> >> >> Š (Remainder unchanged) >> >> >> >> Section 7.5 (revised text) >> >> >> >> 7.5. IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV >> >> >> >> IANA is requested to assign a new Type for RTM capability sub-TLV >> >> from the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry as >> >> follows: >> >> >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> | Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference | >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> | TBA3 | RTM | y | y | n | y | y | This document | >> >> | | Capability | | | | | >> | | >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> >> >> Table 5: IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV Registry Description >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanx. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 10:36 PM >> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> *Cc:* Loa Andersson; mpls@ietf.org; TEAS WG; ospf@ietf.org; Isis-wg; >> ospf-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org; >>TEAS >> WG Chairs; isis-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> >> >> Hi Les, >> >> attached are diff and the updated version -14. Would be much obliged to >> hear from you if the updates are according to your suggestions and >>address >> your comments. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < >> ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Loa - >> >> >> >> The change for IS-IS encoding to utilize a sub-TLV of TLV 22 et al to >> advertise RTM capability is a better solution than the previous proposal >> and this has my support. >> >> However, there are some details as regards the proposed sub-TLV that >> should be revised. >> >> >> >> 1)Rather than use a fixed 16 bit field for the flags I suggest you >>utilize >> the encoding style introduced in RFC 7794 (see Section 2.1) which allows >> for a variable length flags field. This addresses two issues: >> >> >> >> o You need never worry that the size of the flags field will be too >> small for future extensions >> >> o It minimizes the number of bytes required to be sent >> >> >> >> The latter point is something IS-IS has always been more conservative >> about than OSPF because of the fixed size of an LSP set which can be >> advertised by a single router. >> >> >> >> 2)In the IANA considerations you have limited the sub-TLV to being used >>in >> TLV 22 only, but there is no reason to do so. This does not allow MT to >>be >> supported and it needlessly prevents use of the sub-TLV by the RFC 5311 >> extensions (however unpopular those may be). I can understand why the >> sub-TLV may not be useful in TLV 141, therefore I suggest the table in >> Section 7.5 be revised to be: >> >> >> >> >> >> | Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference >> | >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> | TBA3 | RTM | y | y | n | y | y | This document >> | >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> >> >> >> i.e. "y" for all but TLV 141 (in case the ASCII art doesn't translate >>well >> in your mailer). >> >> >> >> You should also remove the reference to RFC 5305 in Section 4.5 as it is >> too limiting. Simply referencing the IANA registry http://www.iana.org/ >> assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv- >> codepoints-22-23-141-222-223 should be sufficient. All necessary >> references can be found there. >> >> >> >> 3)An editorial correction: >> >> >> >> Introduction 3rd paragraph: >> >> >> >> s/ Althugh/ Although >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson >> >> > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:02 AM >> >> > To: mpls@ietf.org; TEAS WG; ospf@ietf.org; Isis-wg >> >> > Cc: isis-chairs@ietf.org; >>draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org; >> TEAS >> >> > WG Chairs; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; ospf-chairs@ietf.org >> >> > Subject: [OSPF] Working group last call on >>draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> > >> >> > Working Groups, >> >> > >> >> > This is to initiate a two week working group last call in four working >> groups on >> >> > draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13. >> >> > >> >> > The MPLS working group has done an earlier working group last call >>and a >> >> > request for publication has been made. >> >> > >> >> > The changes to the document were such that we decided to do a new >> >> > working group last call and extend it to MPLS, TEAS, OSPF and IS-IS. >> >> > >> >> > There are three major changes between the version of the document for >> >> > which publication was requested are: >> >> > >> >> > (1) that section 7 " One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes" has been >> >> > moved up to become section 2.1. >> >> > (2) that a sub-TLV for TLV 22 instead of TLV 251 is used to RTM >> >> > Capability when IS-IS used advertise RTM capabilities >> >> > (3) BGP-LS has been added as a RTM capability advertisement method >> >> > >> >> > A side-by-side diff between version -12 and -13 is available at: >> >> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13 >> >> > >> >> > Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (mpls@ietf.org) >> if >> >> > you are not subscribed to the mpls wg list, send to "your own" >> >> > working group mailing list, and we'll make sure they are posted to the >> MPLS >> >> > wg list. >> >> > >> >> > There were one IPR disclosure against this document. >> >> > >> >> > All the authors and contributors have stated on the working group >> mailing list >> >> > that they are not aware of any other IPRs that relates to this >>document
- [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls… Loa Andersson
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Working group last call on draf… Uma Chunduri
- [OSPF] Closed -- Re: Working group last call on d… Loa Andersson
- Re: [OSPF] [mpls] Closed -- Re: Working group las… Greg Mirsky