Stephane and Matthew,
Thanks for sending this to the mpls wg, LSP Ping is one of of out key
protocols and assignments of LSP Ping code points should be reviewed by
the mpls working group.
bess wg, (mpls wg for info),
There are a few comments on the IANA section and the use of the code
points you request that IANA shall allocate.
First, the scope of the sub-TLVs allocated from the "Sub-TLVs for TLV
Types 1, 16, and 21" sub-registry. Code points from this registry are
valid for three TLVs (1, 16 and 21), it is the impression that the draft
try to allocate four sub-TLVs for TLV 1 only. If the sub-TLV is not
valid for TLVs 16 and 21 that needs to be carefully specified in the
document. If this is the case it would imply a not insignificant
implementation complexity.
Second, the registry from which the allocation will be done needs to
clearly pointed out.
The IANA section talks about:
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Parameters - TLVs" registry.
There is no such registry. I often use the following terminology to
get the registry names right, Name Space, Registry, sub-registry.
In your case the namespace would be "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters"
The registry would be "TLVs"
And the sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21"
One way of clearly pointing out drom which sub-registry you wantt the
sub-TLVs to be appointed would be:
"IANA is requested to assign value for the four sub-TLVs listed below
from the Standards Track" (0-16383) range, in the "Sub-TLVs for TLV
Types 1, 16, and 21" sub-registry, in the "TLVs" registry in the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" name space."
You should also say that you want the lowest 4 free values.
Note 1: I had some communication with the editor that indicates that
this is the correct range.
Note 2: There is a draft that will soon be wglc'ed in the MPLS working
group, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update". As far as I can
see none of the changes to the LSP Ping registers done in the mpls
draft has any effect on the allocation made by this draft.
I have consulted our registry experts (Carlos and Mach) to look at the
IANA registry in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping. The point that they
brought back was that the scope of the requested sub-TLVs (TLV 1 only or
TLV 1, 16 and 21) must be made very clear.
For the allocation "Return Codes" that is cledarer. Say "The Return
Codes" registry in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" name space." And that the two
lowest standard actions code points should be allocated.
I would use bullets to list the return codes, using numbers might be
taken as that this is the values you want.
There are some language that should be considered, e.g. from section
8.2:
This document proposes two new Return Codes, which SHOULD be included
in the Echo Reply message by a PE in response to LSP Ping Echo
Request message:
This are rather general statement, and it is true only EVPN and PBB
context, right? Please make specific.
The same would be true for this from section 8.1.:
This document defines 4 new sub-TLV type to be included in Target FEC
Stack TLV (TLV Type 1) [RFC8029] in LSP Ping.
It is only included in EVPN and PBB context, and I would substitute
"LSP Ping" with "echo request and echo reply messages"
/Loa
On 03/07/2020 21:32, [email protected] wrote:
Hi MPLS WG,
We have started a working group last call on
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping which we may be interested to have you
review and comments on. Please comment on the BESS mailing list as well
as MPLS mailing list.
Brgds,
Stephane
*From:*[email protected] <[email protected]>
*Sent:* vendredi 3 juillet 2020 15:29
*To:* [email protected]; [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping
Hello WG,
This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-02 [1].
This poll runs until * the 20^th Of July *.
We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers
from all the Authors and Contributors.
There is currently no IPR disclosed.
If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please
explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].
Thank you,
Stephane & Matthew
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
