[rfc-dist] RFC 8690 on Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Wed, 11 December 2019 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D335E120052 for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:01:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 PvVVal6kWxb6 for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3D8120127 for <rfc-dist-archive-yuw6Xa6hiena@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCAFF40712; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:01:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 49CC4F40710; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:01:02 -0800 (PST)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20191211190102.49CC4F40710@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:01:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rfc-dist] =?utf-8?q?RFC_8690_on_Clarification_of_Segment_ID_Sub?= =?utf-8?q?-TLV_Length_for_RFC_8287?=
X-BeenThere: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Announcements <rfc-dist.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, mpls@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-dist" <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 8690

        Title:      Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV 
                    Length for RFC 8287 
        Author:     N. Nainar,
                    C. Pignataro,
                    F. Iqbal,
                    A. Vainshtein
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       December 2019
        Mailbox:    naikumar@cisco.com, 
                    cpignata@cisco.com, 
                    faisal.ietf@gmail.com,
                    vainshtein.alex@gmail.com
        Pages:      7
        Updates:    RFC 8287

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04.txt

        URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8690

        DOI:        10.17487/RFC8690

RFC 8287 defines the extensions to perform LSP Ping and Traceroute
for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers
(SIDs) with the MPLS data plane. RFC 8287 proposes three Target
Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack sub-TLVs. While RFC 8287
defines the format and procedure to handle those sub-TLVs, it does
not sufficiently clarify how the length of the Segment ID sub-TLVs
should be computed to be included in the Length field of the
sub-TLVs. This ambiguity has resulted in interoperability issues.

This document updates RFC 8287 by clarifying the length of each of
the Segment ID sub-TLVs defined in RFC 8287.

This document is a product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Official
Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the 
standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this 
memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC


_______________________________________________
rfc-dist mailing list
rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
http://www.rfc-editor.org