Hi Bruno, Thank your very much for the review and the input. Indeed it makes sense to include OPSFv3 as well. I updated the draft accordingly.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-03 https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-03 In the meanwhile I went one step further since I am going through the RFC process and ask for adoption at OPSAWG and present it also at SPRING. I added also another field called SrSidType to complement the mplsTopLabelType to not only understand which label protocol assigned the top label, but also for which SID type. The SID type brings additional insights into Segment Routing forwarding behavior which are interesting for LFA applications which are hard to troubleshoot without as an example. I got that idea by looking at the sub-tlv IPFIX code-points for LSP Ping where I noticed the distinction between IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency. https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-1-16-21 Since mplsTopLabelType represents the MPLS forwarding plane, where I could have added all the SID types for all the protocols as well, I went a more general approach to use a dedicated field for SID Type. That can be applied for MPLS-SR and SRv6 as well. It's debatable which approach would be simpler. Feedback more than welcome. If you and Paul could have a look at that as well would be fantastic. Thanks a lot. Best Wishes Thomas Graf -----Original Message----- From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:48 AM To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Martin Vigoureux ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [spring] review of draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 Hi Thomas, > From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:20 PM > > Hi Paul, > > Many thanks for the review and the feedback. Ack on all. I updated the draft > according to your and other input from the mailing list. > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-02&am > p;data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cc0971d8a798045b6732408d7 > d23c6d59%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C6372090292834402 > 52&sdata=aQVYptB2DOXpxKTMMcgIdiSJt10uCdV0w%2B66%2Bsf9xFY%3D&re > served=0 > > > If the draft is to be accepted by IANA then it needs to be published > > or archived somewhere > > This was one of the unclarities I had. If I understand you correctly, this > draft needs to be adopted by SPRING working group and published as RFC for > documentation purposes before values can be assigned by IANA. Correct? https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc7012%23section-7.2&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cc0971d8a798045b6732408d7d23c6d59%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637209029283450210&sdata=QQe40VEEqfW0UlypEuEUuoKi7lrMKOzN9Sy1U1UM694%3D&reserved=0 says: "New assignments for MPLS label types are administered by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a group of experts designated by an IETF Area Director. The group of experts must double-check the label type definitions with already-defined label types for completeness, accuracy, and redundancy. The specification of new MPLS label types MUST be published using a well-established and persistent publication medium." As far as I know, for the IETF " a well-established and persistent publication medium" mostly translates as RFC (i.e. a draft is not enough). My reading is that any kind of RFC would work, including independent submission. However, the document would probably benefit from a technical review. I feel that both opsawg and spring would work, I don't have specific preference. As an individual contributor, I have one question related to: | TBD1 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | | TBD2 | OSPF Segment Routing | RFC8665 | Do you want to make the distinction between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3? OSPFv2 SR-MPLS extensions: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8665&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cc0971d8a798045b6732408d7d23c6d59%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637209029283450210&sdata=CuvFH47aNfFxvRPcZNQWBpmGKpXq1FnhHd6h7jcpQ20%3D&reserved=0 OSPFv3 SR-MPLS extensions: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8666&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cc0971d8a798045b6732408d7d23c6d59%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637209029283450210&sdata=yAJQyI%2BpBQn26MzSUq2H4hlyEHohhKD%2FUUsJUknvrZY%3D&reserved=0 Especially given the current work related to LSP ping: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cc0971d8a798045b6732408d7d23c6d59%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637209029283450210&sdata=Divm0em2OYqAzLWYvBQwnnWOYfSYKuY1veN69JjKiiM%3D&reserved=0 Best wishes, --Bruno > > Best Wishes > Thomas > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aitken, Paul <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 11:10 AM > To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: review of draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 > > Thomas, here's some feedback about draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 : > > > Since Figure 1 is intended to update the "IPFIX Information Element #46" > SubRegistry, it should contain the same columns as that registry - ie, Value, > Description, Reference. > > The ElementID, Abstract Data Type, and Data Type Semantics are already > defined in the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry; they are not pertinent > here. > > So Figure 1 should be: > > ------------------------------------------- > |Value| Description | Reference | > |-----------------------------------------| > |TBD1 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | > |-----------------------------------------| > |TBD2 | OSPF Segment Routing | RFC8665 | > ------------------------------------------- > > > If the draft is to be accepted by IANA then it needs to be published or > archived somewhere, since RFC 7012 (and RFC 5102) say: > > The specification of new MPLS label types MUST be published using a > well-established and persistent publication medium. > > > "not believed" in section 3 is not rigorous; the statement must be definite - > eg "This document does not add any additional IPFIX security > considerations.", or "The same security considerations apply as for the IPFIX > Protocol [RFC7012]." > > > Surely many of the Normative references are simply Informative? eg > I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting, RFC4364, RFC5036, RFC8277, RFC8660, > RFC8665, RFC8667. > > > Typo: "laveraged" in the second paragraph of section 1. > > > P. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cc0971d8a798045b6732408d7d23c6d59%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637209029283450210&sdata=AGo3nRD99wE9uqlnrCV%2BdG5Ge8RiCRDfHORlgt1PPi8%3D&reserved=0
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
