Re: [Teas] AD review of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, please!
Update and post.
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dongjie (Jimmy) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 22 January 2015 06:27
> To: Lou Berger; [e-mail]; 'Cyril Margaria'; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail];
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Teas] AD review of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro
> 
> Hi Lou,
> 
> Thanks a lot for providing the suggested description. I think it specifies a
> reasonable rule of using the ERO Hop Attributes subobject in the loopback
> scenario.
> 
> Adrian, if you also like it, I can update the draft accordingly.
> 
> Many thanks,
> Jie
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:17 AM
> > To: [e-mail]; 'Cyril Margaria'; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail];
> > [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Teas] AD review of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro
> >
> > [ccamp dropped response doesn't concern the WSON draft] On 1/21/2015 6:57
> > AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > >> For draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb this could be (restricting the TLV
> > >> to
> > >> > explicit nodes, precluding link ids):
> > >> > The Attribute Flags TLV with Loopback Attribute Flag set MUST be
> > >> > present after an explicit Hop addressing an TE Router ID
> > >> > identifying a specific node or a Link ID identifying an incoming TE
> > >> > link.  it MUST NOT be present after a loose,  abstract node, Link
> > >> > ID identifying an outgoing TE link, Component Interface ID or Label.
> > > Ah, joy!
> > > Yes. This needs another fix to draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb.
> > > I've made a note in the data tracker and marked that I-D as needing a
> > > new revision.
> > >
> > I think this phrasing is too restrictive as it may be possible to put some
of the
> > identified items into loopback in some technologies, e.g., an output
interface.
> > How about:
> >
> > after:
> >     The mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to
address
> > the loopback request
> >      to the particular node.
> > add:
> >      The ingress MUST ensure that the desired  loopback mode is strictly
> > identified in the ERO.
> > and
> > OLD:
> >
> >    If the bit is set, the node SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode.
> > NEW
> >     If the bit is set, the node MUST check that the desired loopback is
strictly
> >     identified by verifying that the L bit is set to 0 in both the ERO Hop
> >     Attributes subobject and the prior subobject. The prior subobject
> >     MUST also be checked to ensure that it provides strict identification.
> >     Currently, the type value MUST be verified to be less than 32, and
> >     for type values 1 and 2 the prefix length MUST be 32 and 128
respectively.
> >     If the desired loopback is not strictly identified the request MUST be
> > ignored
> >     and a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error SHOULD be generated.
> >
> >      Otherwise, the node SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode.
> >
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas