Subject: [Pals] RFC4447bis LC and label request/response discussion in Prague

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:08:44 -0600

Folks,

Some of you brought up the fact the in the current rfc4447bis update
document it is not clear that we require a full implementation of the
LDP protocol specified in rfc5036.

In particular the part that is assumed, thought rfc4447bis is that any
implementation of this protocol MUST implement responding to remote
label mapping request messages.

I propose the following update to the text :

OLD:

LDP MUST exchange PW FEC label bindings in downstream unsolicited
manner, independent of the negotiated label advertisement mode of the
LDP session according to the specifications in specified in [RFC7358].
LDP's "liberal label retention" mode SHOULD be used.

NEW:

LDP MUST exchange PW FEC label bindings in downstream unsolicited
manner, independent of the negotiated label advertisement mode of the
LDP session according to the specifications in specified in [RFC7358].
LDP's "liberal label retention" mode SHOULD be used. However all the LDP
procedures specified in [RFC5036] MUST be implemented, and specifically
the procedures in section  3.5.7. "Label Mapping Message", and   3.5.8.
"Label Request Message".

Does this work ?

Any other suggestions ?

Thanks.

Luca

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:59:27 -0400

Luca,

RFC 5036 uses "Downstream Unsolicited mode" rather than "downstream
unsolicited manner", so you should change "manner" to "mode" and
capitalize Downstream
Unsolicited. It also uses "Liberal Label retention mode" (note the capital
L's and small r and m).

Regarding your new text "However all the LDP procedures specified in
[RFC5036] MUST be implemented, and specifically the procedures in section
3.5.7. "Label Mapping Message", and   3.5.8. "Label Request Message".", I
would just shorten it to say: "However, all the LDP procedures specified in
[RFC5036] MUST be implemented." I don't know if it's necessary to call
special attention to those two sections if you have to implement everything
anyway.

Cheers,
Andy

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Luca Martini <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Pals mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
>

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:55:08 -0600

On 07/27/2015 01:59 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Luca,
>
> RFC 5036 uses "Downstream Unsolicited mode" rather than "downstream unsolicited 
> manner", so you should change "manner" to "mode" and capitalize Downstream 
> Unsolicited. It also uses "Liberal Label retention mode" (note the capital L's 
> and small r and m).
yes - Agreed.

> Regarding your new text "However all the LDP procedures specified in [RFC5036] 
> MUST be implemented, and specifically the procedures in section  3.5.7. "Label 
> Mapping Message", and   3.5.8. "Label Request Message".", I would just shorten 
> it to say: "However, all the LDP procedures specified in [RFC5036] MUST be 
> implemented." I don't know if it's necessary to call special attention to those 
> two sections if you have to implement everything anyway.
I agree, but people in the meeting insisted on an explicit mention of
those sections.
Above text is driven by the comments in the meeting.
Let's see if other speak up.
Thanks.
Luca

> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Luca Martini <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Folks,
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:48:16 +0000

Luca,

This is perfect! Thanks for this change.

Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

[email-masked]
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/global/CA/>

 Think before you print.This
 email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender
by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here 
<http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html> for
Company Registration Information.

---

From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:50:58 +0000

Hi,

I don¹t have a strong opinion as long it is clear to everyone that a PE
MUST respond to PW FEC label request.

Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette

[email-masked]
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

On 2015-07-27, 7:55 PM, "Pals on behalf of Luca Martini (lmartini)"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>>unsolicited 
>>[RFC5036]

---

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:18:17 +0000

Luca

I don’t object to the intent, but I agree with Andy that there is
something strange about calling out those sections specifically. You are
upgrading the RFC2119 requirement around label request because responding
to a label request is a SHOULD in RFC5036, but a MUST here.

Are there any other cases where we really need an implementation to do
something that is only a SHOULD in RFC5036?

Matthew

---

From: "Shah, Himanshu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 05:17:51 -0400

I am still on vacation but wanted to opine on the text Luca proposed.
 I agree with the proposed text and explicit call out two sections.

Himanshu using iPad (so excuse the auto-corrects...)
________________________________________
From: Pals [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:50 PM
To: Luca Martini (lmartini); Andrew G. Malis
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Pals] RFC4447bis LC and label request/response discussion in Prague

Hi,

Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette

[email-masked]
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

---

From: "Shah, Himanshu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 05:37:21 -0400

Mathew has a good point as well. Did not check if 5036 says
SHOULD or MUST.

Himanshu using iPad (so excuse the auto-corrects...)
________________________________________
From: Pals [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset); Luca Martini (lmartini); Andrew G. Malis
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Pals] RFC4447bis LC and label request/response discussion in Prague

Luca

Matthew

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:58:26 -0600

Matthew,

can you point out the SHOULD in rfc5036 to me ? I could not find it explicitly in the text. Are you referring to the appendix ?
Thanks.
Luca

On 07/30/15 13:18, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote:
> Luca
>
> I don¡¯t object to the intent, but I agree with Andy that there is
>> I don©öt have a strong opinion as long it is clear to everyone that a PE