Re: [Pce] Query regarding draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02

[Mrinmoy Das <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

Thanks for your quick reply.

I have added PCE WG in this mail. More inline.

Thanks & Regards,
Mrinmoy

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Mrinmoy,
>
> I was suggest you to also include [e-mail]; WG could benefit from
> the discussion in future. More inline.
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:08 PM Mrinmoy Das <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Respected Authors and Contributors,
> >
> > Hope you all are doing well and safe in this tough times of Corona Virus
> Outbreak.
> >
> > I like to draw your attention regarding some parts of
> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02 which I didn't able to understand
> properly.
> >
> > 1. BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
> >
> >   specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
> >   other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
> >   The Length MUST be set to 7.
> >
> >
> >     Previous versions of private draft uses 4 byte to store MPLS 20 Bit
> label and ignores TC, S & TTL fields.
>
> The length in the previous version was 6, which was incorrect. The TLV
> length is as per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.1
> Which didnt make sense and your calculation below is correct!
>
> >     But in IETF draft after TLV structure redefinition, total length of
> the TLV becomes 7, i.e. BT(1 Byte)+Reserved(3 Byte)+MPLS 20bit Label(3
> Byte) = 7 Byte
>
> Yes
>
> >     So, now MPLS 20 Bit Labelwill be stored in 3 byte. Is it correct?
>
> You can consider it a case of rounding up 20 bits to 3 bytes.


> >     If this is correct then I feel the wording of the above paragraph
> needs to be more specific, meaning in 3 Byte Label there will be no space
> for TTL, so
> >     my suggestion is to make below correction:
> >
> >     BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
> >
> >   specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
> >   other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
> >   The Length MUST be set to 7.
> >
>
> My suggestion would be not mention any of the other fields and talk
> only of 20 bits of Label. I see other SR RFCs take similar approach.
>

Sounds Good. I'm agree with you.


> >
> > 2. In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
> >
> >   binding value.  It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
> >   empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
> >   (making the length field of the TLV as 2).  A PCE can also make the
> >   request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by
> >   sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
> >
> >
> >   As per new Binding TLV Structure below, BT is of 1 Byte and there will
> be 3 Byte Reserved.
> >
> >          0                   1                   2                   3
> >
> >        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 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |             Type              |             Length            |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |      BT       |                 Reserved                      |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       ~            Binding Value (variable length)                    ~
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >
> >    Now, an empty Binding TLV should have length of BT(1 Byte) + Reserved
> (3 Byte) = 4 Byte instead of 2 Byte.
> >
> >    So, I do not understand how in the draft it is calculated as 2 Byte.
> Could you please give me some clue?
>
>
> This seems to be an error IMHO. 4 seems to be correct.
>

Okay. So what would  be your suggestion to developer who is implementing
this draft? Should it be taken as 4? If draft needs correction
when will that be published?

>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Mrinmoy
>