IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels

Matt Hartley <mhartley.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 24 September 2018 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mhartley.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB70130E3F; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 VAGAQLFYS5n6; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (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 AF7EA130F01; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id q1-v6so3970945plr.4; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ufGkMmWfp8dxk3Fey1S3e53nA66VJj/LKeFmwq42C5o=; b=vRktqzvZp+cQ2m1GBAdXpfi9SU8RJ1b2bofePCA3OXwHk76Z+2mdGEkJZ++l+v7BXI qcKzxaCTMHafey8m0MfINOvoWV1bDQttLAhpLVT4aeZGtc63DO6LLgC4nvA1+GKzFB01 DfOIRL7R4xhEInLT5vkJeBjyAEZ8TJl6PH+wd+9A1xLlmIBUcIRP0Ucd42Ps9mP+ukQw iByVB5PkARuE58P6wtIcYm+51i/z8X6ZdpCZ6zOUFgknV3g38A3acjWA8m1L5OSflA47 iYXLQtNM1hkHYPpUBg0WKm7nSLKsy2nAoO/bSbrZpgM+GmYITx1IrYOPA1YSNFwerYHS 3T2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ufGkMmWfp8dxk3Fey1S3e53nA66VJj/LKeFmwq42C5o=; b=P2eRRRr4AqGfgP9DM1mFdUwHQJfFcGu8VCc4ykDSee+75PLryl/tnmEc3V+bVgtYRI yM/z4lPWXUOhJIOjLZeQYsTeHHAob9cj0vQnhhGFcXhNx8OSRsqx2QZhwy+emrRI9u2e L7lGpfV7eENOH3E9fugDB8vhvXV3XBkNKNhTXjOtH7P6E4rCaTvDfKqLohxPanIdDvuX wxiVjk8glCo7uhs6gwUK4z/HhK72P/aiIhK6f15oHdecK14rRUsjCALzJpd3B1Szhime Vi+l64+4PLwXQXq4zELeKuf34vGX+rqIugztqxKhsVXJqVoNZg+llOKpd4nPhce8GmW8 UbLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoj4o62sp/cgkjOcsID6FyyHOg6OVI3DlWOQd986C/SAK0yXgYDp i2fTN+diKbQRFGcIHMtlbmNwbcRBQPEgKbiZhF0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62B3oTf+UAqbaZWbUMkjdGa3mQOIU8KTT+jrgJ/PuURblZh8811+HEB/ldDiyZgr2EVuIvIfn98IrRN0mQBCTc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:4324:: with SMTP id i33-v6mr11487561pld.43.1537812142180; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKfnWBj5hWjGX0D5kuq6ya9p=0csB1C2h_-B6ZVhXpMm0=B6sw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+YzgTuESy7yaanHCfiDW74exHHVkpx8TY1t8m2ApggoEhUQgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKfnWBgXfUaaY1QRRT1cuW=yx3LUeqaGThz9E76_tGVAnV1vug@mail.gmail.com> <CA+YzgTv8bVAMON442OqB5Rdi4B27cUvZZRfOeF9uLDV-oqHD=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTv8bVAMON442OqB5Rdi4B27cUvZZRfOeF9uLDV-oqHD=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Hartley <mhartley.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:02:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKfnWBh22BByZV-gzQ02T5=pFyQ1-ff1zAoiUbH-wWKJ1VFWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000774d8d0576a1cab8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/KYM3Oc7Pd5GXIAgJ8WikZw20h1w>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:02:25 -0000

Pavan,

Thanks for the reply. The various changes/additions look good to me, except
that you should probably expand "doesn't" to "does not" when they go in the
document. One last nit...

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Can nodes other than the ingress introduce an ETLD into the Path message
>> if the ingress node doesn't? In particular, can an explicitly-allocated
>> delegation node do this?
>>
>
> [Pavan] No and No. ETLD is used only for automatic delegation.
>

Do we need to say that explicitly? I don't think a transit node introducing
an ETLD would do much harm, but if you don't want/expect it to happen then
it might be worth putting that in just to close the loophole.

Cheers

Matt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email