IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11/RFC8664

Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Fri, 21 January 2022 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C3C3A19C5 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 02:38:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dhruvdhody-com.20210112.gappssmtp.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 CO_wwfFDdOlG for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 02:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A64423A19C2 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 02:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id h13so7443883plf.2 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 02:38:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dhruvdhody-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=77IerSeGP+qpWhutlnv6KqIV7kyPCXep6h/wJJLguEo=; b=jxHeAZVhFT09D5p25yTUJM4TL6Z7yiKmTERqqD787/kwuJpV4ZKgZ+TRAuglwoaXgF 7uOepUGFZC/PRAxWh9hxFa0dzcLixgWKOawHFQx2+KHwTU9z+IGUBYDzPeta3e7c3OgU ltGOI/76ebnQWyEF5DGwbFDcyF+9Q7V9fNNW8sKUoWzcfQDkSw+qcww6R75m/pr7Vzr5 fybBltLQi91wFWcf7vurVU9FjwHBCK+Wgs7YTTm9YzDNy+CMMvnNbMIzPPvUBw43+p7y tGidRt/jjUsn55pMGtrMVFlEMN62I6fhFY6q9CZJHgZgpK4BVQwwNr4jnEAXA59M8MUr m+nQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=77IerSeGP+qpWhutlnv6KqIV7kyPCXep6h/wJJLguEo=; b=FMyOTDNfMGT//lsrTPQAPHM+Gpb2CZUBEMrsf6zOxyyEaYlqD4ESGRBrPDPasEVWpT HZu4fcSKcVLkYX5v5+YCvi+j+uUHb6foOACI++YNrZWzdNj4CiOAMs1R3wbZTnpCxvn0 egaJMMs7a1hs7ZqVqNqRWe3bY/TSP1TgFss/E/5JvpAAZgxC4hacnVDqjowftix01TE5 0LBGPRJCi/2YJudEb/qUZ3n9+e1nwV9iJbDy3guAZ/qM60etQ8ANNyHXcrXR9X5+sU6D ktycpOVe8XypUzQwoB4vk7C0X8pp3BVvf/e/UPE1l4kCivdkKzLxkkCDoIWBduI9ky/Y ojgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LOgkpM7pw+9UPCQEwHbejo/fycfhsqIfJRZXVERq0B3su445H Hd49oA+N5/sLfxZPwyNy16Sh5LOx9IWYWwRN8ZcJ5A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwajzgmwcI0MMvvAEJmeQMNtWkDuNxweNKZb5wb7dw8TdKjDT9BNTCCY3+R9rZEaKsGUNWU/zOiKJlXeI0C5JE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3910:: with SMTP id ob16mr165028pjb.88.1642761510666; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 02:38:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANVfNKok8jD3M7N_Ug7rdDJ9N+eUz0_BuVOhaKbzC+juiSm91Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANVfNKok8jD3M7N_Ug7rdDJ9N+eUz0_BuVOhaKbzC+juiSm91Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 16:07:54 +0530
Message-ID: <CAP7zK5ayEYSidU+-jW=UoaFsE_-FqmU_bTWjgKwgt_0PtMWuUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mrinmoy Das <mrinmoy.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b570d05d61538c9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/d1goL8pqnCRnpPTTT0pqBz7c4Ac>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11/RFC8664
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:38:37 -0000

Hi Mrinmoy,

You are correct. There was a recent errata on RFC 8664 regarding this issue
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6753

The authors of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6 should also fix this
issue in their draft. Thanks for noticing it.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:01 PM Mrinmoy Das <mrinmoy.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Team,
>
> I have a doubt regarding below section of the above draft:
>
> 4.3.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11#section-4.3.1>.  SRv6-ERO Subobject
>
>
> NAI Type (NT): Indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in
>    the object body, if any is present.  If the F bit is set to zero (see
>    below) then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored by the
>    receiver.  This document reuses NT types defined in [RFC8664 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664>]:
>
> It seems above highlighted line indicates that if F bit is set to 0 then
> NT field MUST be ignored
>
> by the receiver, whereas it should be completely opposite as per below definition of F bit
>
> from the same draft:
>
>
>   F: When this bit is set to 1, the NAI value in the subobject body
>       is absent.  The F bit MUST be set to 1 if NT=0, and otherwise MUST
>       be set to zero.  The S and F bits MUST NOT both be set to 1.
>
>
> So, I think the above highlighted line needs correction. As NT type refers
> to RFC8664, I found
>
> the same mistakes over there as well.
>
> 4.3.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664#section-4.3.1>.  SR-ERO Subobject
>
> NAI Type (NT):  Indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in
>       the object body, if any is present.  If the F bit is set to zero
>       (see below), then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored
>       by the receiver.  This document describes the following NT values:
>
> Please let me know if you think differently.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mrinmoy
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email