Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-08

Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Wed, 24 April 2024 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA65C15198D; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Es85k27M4Jqp; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta2.chinamobile.com [111.22.67.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4462C14CE3B; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[10.188.0.87]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee366286b612b8-84aaa; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:16:02 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee366286b612b8-84aaa
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from chengweiqiang (unknown[223.104.40.247]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee166286b604a8-e7300; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:16:02 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee166286b604a8-e7300
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:16:04 +0800
From: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
To: Darren Dukes <ddukesietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.all" <draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.all@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <170873514415.40774.18151433069910014963@ietfa.amsl.com>, <20240301090941644482158@chinamobile.com>, <CAFhLL-aOopTXUNgQKdYNJpkXq+Fev+ec+nZsEApRwxH86uJJvw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 2B4BFAE1-E88C-496C-83BC-C893C27C16F2
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.25.254[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2024042410160332718312@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart214737143042_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/vvo1ZZnn8IU2zoe7MQOwBUbJ6fw>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-08
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 02:16:21 -0000

Dear Darren,

Thank you so much for your review and comments. 
Your input has helped to greatly improve the quality of the document. 

Best regards,

Weiqiang


 
From: Darren Dukes
Date: 2024-04-24 05:02
To: Weiqiang Cheng
CC: rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.all; mpls
Subject: Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-08
Weiqiang and authors, sorry for not hitting reply on this email weeks ago!
 
I've double checked revision 10 and it, along with your comments, resolve
my concerns.
 
Darren
 
 
 
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 8:09 PM Weiqiang Cheng <
chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> wrote:
 
> Hi Darren,
> Thank you very much for your detailed review and comments.
>
> We’ve addressed your feedback in the new Version -10, available at
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-10.html
>
>
>
> For specific responses to your comments, please see my inline feedback
> marked as [Weiqiang].
>
> Any comments are welcome.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Weiqiang
>
>
> Original
> *From: *DarrenDukesviaDatatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> *To: *rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org>;
> *Cc: *draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.all@ietf.org <
> draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.all@ietf.org>;mpls@ietf.org <
> mpls@ietf.org>;
> *Date: *2024年02月24日 08:39
> *Subject: **Rtgdir early review of
> draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-08*
> Reviewer: Darren Dukes
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> I've been assigned as part of the Routing Directorate to review
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-08.txt. In reviewing the draft I note
> it has issues that should be addressed.
>
> Review
> =========================
> Section 2:
>
> [minor] - line 234-239 says the TTL and TC SHOULD be that of the previous label
>
> for the XL and FLI, but MAY be set to other values if they will not be exposed
>
> as top of stack.  Is there any recommended value for XL and FLI if not that of
> the preceding label, eg when they cannot appear at top of stack?
>
> [Weiqiang] The text was borrowed from section 4.2 of RFC6790 and there are
> no recommended values.
>
>
> [minor] - Section 2.1 lines 364-365 Is this an exhaustive list of possible
> "application label" types? If not it's better to state that these are
> non-exhaustive examples.
>
> [Weiqiang] This is not an exhaustive list of possible types. The text was
> updated to reflect that.
>
>
> [minor] - Section 3  This sentence does not make sense " If the hop-by-hop
>
> measurement is applied, i.e., the T bit is set to 0, then whether the transit
> node or the egress node is the processing node. "
>
> [Weiqiang] This sentence was removed.
>
>
> [minor] - Section 3 "egress node" is not defined so I cannot tell how an
>
> "egress node" knows it's an "egress node" and takes the correction action in
>
> bullet 2 of this section. A similar definition for "ingress node" is needed.
>
> [Weiqiang] There is definition of MPLS ingress/egress node in RFC3031, so
> the reference to that RFC was added.
>
>
> [major] - Section 3 I do not see any description of the protocol to the
>
> external NMS. Is that described in another draft and does it need to be updated
> for the content in this section?
>
> [Weiqiang] There is description of the protocols to the external NMS in
> draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment, so the reference to that draft was
> added.
>
>
>
> [major] - Section 4 states "There are two ways of allocating Flow-ID" I find
>
> this section a bit confusing.  The two ways appear to be two examples of how
>
> flow-id may be assigned.  The only normative text in this section is the last
>
> paragraph.  What happens if an implementation chooses another means of flow-ID
>
> allocation that meets the  requirement in the last paragraph? Would it affect
> interoperability? Would it be non-compliant? Are there more than two ways?
>
> [Weiqiang] You're absolutely correct the two ways are non-exhaustive. As
> long as the requirement in the last paragraph is met, the interoperability
> can be met and it would be compliant.
>
>
> [major] - Section 5 FRLD and FLC are needed along a path, but are they not
>
> needed in the entire measurement domain along any possible path? If the network
>
> reconverges and the PHP is no longer FLC I expect some strange behaviors are
> possible.  Can you clarify this?
>
> [Weiqiang] FRLD and FLC are needed along a path the performance
> measurement is applied to, if the network reconverges, then it's expected
> that the ingress node should stop adding FL until the ingress node confirms
> that FRLD and FLC are met along the new path.
>
>
>
> [major] - Section 6 Can you expand on the ECMP problem with FLI specifically?
>
> This section leaves me guessing if it's intended that some packets of a flow
>
> contain an FLI and other do not, therefore forcing some packets of a flow on a
> different path... but I've not understood that up until this section. With
> these assumptions I don't see how the workarounds in the referenced
> specification are applicable and it appears specific operation needs to be
> specified for FLI.
>
> [Weiqiang] Yes, section 6 has been expanded. Please check the text update