Re: [OSPF] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 19 June 2017 21:52 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 6D9FE1294F0; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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=-0.001, 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 cS99bSRhYkju; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EA8512945A; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2682; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497909146; x=1499118746; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=yTVyGC6yLiadRP3SBGZjy9mdMR0ZFN8hBRY+FYDf8lY=; b=NMIdF2eMcz8bnC9ishHaVkca8HBG4DTRNCjNChBj5hTFHvIa/LDCodqx R/6nNddjrKltCJD4GH7n1nD/6F9vb0mNDfKOQ2J67h6JXHmfAIR4STu9q KtKoKczYscDpQmSme1gznZO/TNWIm58OaWnqWiiI6+22wKpHO0XeqwA1G k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BhAgD9RkhZ/4YNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1higQ0Hg2ScFZV3ghEhC4V4AhqCP0AXAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBAQEhETobAgEIEggCJgICAiULFQIOAgQBEookCBCtXYImi1gBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARkFgQuHOIMihGk6gliCYQWeXgKTXZINlQgBIAE2gQp0FUm?= =?us-ascii?q?FDRyBZnaIQoENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,363,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="258025388"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Jun 2017 21:52:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5JLqPYf030664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:52:25 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:52:24 -0400
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; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:52:24 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
Thread-Index: AQHS5VYLGSOlKtAx/Euz6n9XKUfvmKIq+fOAgAIIyYD//78zgA==
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:52:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D56DBE3E.B5A5D%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CABFReBq7EzS=ujGKj4FyLitji04ptpH5txbWq3C+UzHRvrOVig@mail.gmail.com> <D56C3FCB.B553A%acee@cisco.com> <a9a3db9b-4581-8c35-5b72-282fa1f6beb2@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <a9a3db9b-4581-8c35-5b72-282fa1f6beb2@juniper.net>
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: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8AA12288C084EB4C826D2C15BC2D7D13@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/zLlo1Lmzk8yNwY0H4_t2UJiEvzI>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:52:28 -0000

Hi Eric, 

On 6/19/17, 5:44 PM, "BIER on behalf of Eric C Rosen"
<bier-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of erosen@juniper.net> wrote:

>> It is somewhat strange to make protocol drafts standards track while
>> the architecture and encapsulations are experimental.
>
>I believe the documents are all supposed to be Experimental. However,
>this is not necessarily reflected correctly on the first page of each
>draft.

They seem to be all “Standards Track” right now.
>
>> The second example in the MPLS encapsulation draft implies a single
>> contiguous range of labels when, in fact, it must be encoded as 4
>> separate label ranges in the OSPF draft.
>
>That implication is unintended, as there is no suggestion that the
>labels L1, ..., L12 are successive numeric values.  At least, there was
>no intent to suggest that.  I can add a sentence to make that clearer.

Yes - that would definitely satisfy my comment.

>
>> I think It would be good then to tie the IGP encodings to the two
>> examples.
>
>I think it is appropriate in that example to point out that twelve
>labels must be allocated, each corresponding to a different <SD, BDL,
>SI> triple.  How those twelve labels get signaled is outside the scope
>of the encapsulation spec, and is totally a matter for the signaling
>documents to address.

I agree. After our protracted discussion, I did see that the OSPF draft
explicitly specifies "A unique label range is allocated for each BitStream
length and Sub-domain-ID.” However, I still think it would be clearer if
the protocol draft said something like: "For example, to advertise the
labels of the BitStrings in the second example in […], four labels ranges
would be advertised, one for each unique Sub-Domain and Bit String Length
tuple.”

Thanks,
Acee  

>
>_______________________________________________
>BIER mailing list
>BIER@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier