Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt

Hi Carlos,
RFC 7110 defined sub-TLVs by extensively re-using TFS sub-TLVs. Even more,
they've referenced explanations of fields to the TFS-defining RFCs. I guess
only Flags field was introduced in RFC 7110 with Primary and Secondary bit
flag fields being defined.

As, I've said in the discussion on BFD directed, this is proposal, it make
sense to me as the head-end has all the information already. I always
welcome technical comments and appreciate well-argumented discussion. What
would be the reason not to use the proposed approach but do it TFS-like
style?

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:

> You are right — sorry about that! “TFS” is not used in any of those RFCs
> or drafts, although it is used on email discussions about LSP Ping.
>
> Indeed, TFS for “Target FEC Stack” from Section 3.2 of RFC 8029.
>
> Thanks,
>
> — Carlos.
>
> On May 10, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>
> Never mind .. I guess you made it up from "Target FEC Stack" :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> Sorry what is "TFS" ?
>>
>> RFC 7110 does not even use such abbreviation neither do
>> draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed :) Google also seems to be pretty clueless
>> about it.
>>
>> Just curious as you keep using this term in each email :)
>>
>> Thx,
>> R.
>>
>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
>> cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Greg,
>>>
>>> In the MPLS data plane, FECs are also instantiated through a label
>>> stack. But RFC 7110 does not use numeric label values, it uses TFSs. That
>>> does not create any additional state. E.g.,: https://www.ietf.org/ma
>>> il-archive/web/mpls/current/msg16091.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> — Carlos.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 9, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Carlos,
>>> I probably would characterize anything that starts with Why not as a
>>> technical comment but rather as a question.
>>> According to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, "In the MPLS
>>> dataplane,the SR header is instantiated through a label stack".
>>> At the same time, one of advantages of SR is that "per-flow state only
>>> [maintained] at the ingress node to the SR domain".
>>> Thus, for the case of monitoring unidirectional SR tunnels, I consider
>>> that there's no need to create any additional state on the egress node.
>>> Of course, if there were bidirectional SR tunnels, then control of the
>>> reverse direction of the BFD session would not require use of the Return
>>> Path sub-TLV.
>>> As for LSP-Ping, I just propose that the Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel
>>> sub-TLV MAY be used Reply Path TLV defined in RFC 7110. I viewed the
>>> proposal as invitation to technical discussion.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
>>> cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Greg!
>>>>
>>>> Since https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00 seems
>>>> quite similar to the text removed at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff
>>>> ?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt, then the complete set of
>>>> outstanding technical comments that triggered the removal of that text from
>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt might peek your interest :-)
>>>>
>>>> One that I recall is: why use label values when every other return-path
>>>> sub-TLV for BFD and for LSP-Ping, including draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed,
>>>> uses TFSs?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> — Carlos.
>>>>
>>>> On May 9, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Carlos,
>>>> I've decided to re-start the discussion and am interested to hear
>>>> technical comments to the proposed solution.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
>>>> cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Greg,
>>>>>
>>>>> Cursorily scanning through this, it seems that most concerns raised
>>>>> and comments made about the SR sections of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-0N
>>>>> (with N < 5) apply to your new draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of those: https://www.ietf.org/ma
>>>>> il-archive/web/mpls/current/msg15860.html — the list archive shows a
>>>>> few more. The copy/paste did not address the comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> — Carlos.
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>> perhaps this new draft may is of interest to you.
>>>>> Your comments, suggestions are most welcome and greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>>> Date: Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:29 PM
>>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>>>> To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>>>> has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
>>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name:           draft-mirsky-spring-bfd
>>>>> Revision:       00
>>>>> Title:          Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment
>>>>> Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
>>>>> Document date:  2017-05-08
>>>>> Group:          Individual Submission
>>>>> Pages:          7
>>>>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-
>>>>> drafts/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt
>>>>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>>>>> doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/
>>>>> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00
>>>>> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>>>>> doc/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>    Segment Routing architecture leverages the paradigm of source
>>>>>    routing.  It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching
>>>>>    (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane.  A segment is
>>>>>    encoded as an MPLS label and an ordered list of segments is encoded
>>>>>    as a stack of labels.  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is
>>>>>    expected to monitor any kind of paths between systems.  This
>>>>> document
>>>>>    defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap and control
>>>>>    path in reverse direction of a BFD session on the Segment Routing
>>>>>    network over MPLS dataplane.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>>> submission
>>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>