Subject: [PWE3] Re: Header Compression over MPLS & Allison's DISCUSS Comment on PWE3 IANA Allocation Draft

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:10:27 +0200

Hi,

Sorry for stiring this up. What I don't understand is how we can 
register any of the HC over PW types now. We don't have any document 
that specifies how any of those header compressions protocols are used 
on pseudo wires. The references provide in the registration does not 
define how you could actually use it. So what is the reason for 
regestering them now. Why can't the registration wait until we have a 
concensus on how HC is actually accomplished over PW?

Cheers

Magnus

Allison Mankin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In a bit of off-list discussion, we had two threads:
> 
> 1. would it be practical to assume that the RFC 3544
>    protocol would be present for IPHC/CRTP eCRTP?  The answer
>    is that the implementations are not restricting themselves
>    to that design, so Kristofer Sandlun's thoughtful codepoint 
>    suggestion isn't an option.
> 
> 2. are there some very pressing reasons why vendors cannot
>    use eCRTP and find themselves using CRTP?  The answer to
>    this turns out to be yes, and turns out to be
>    sometimes IPR, which is certainly not an unknown finding
>    for IETF...
> 
> I agreed to put cRTP back in the registrations with a note
> that reflects that the use of cRTP has to be an informed tradeoff
> (because the later IETF documents say that cRTP has risks for
> general use).  I've cc'd the AVT chairs because they may want
> to take the new protocol takeup info into account.  Of course,
> no specifics - that's also not unknown for IETF.
> 
> Here's Yet Another List of these - maybe we are looking at our last one :)
> 
> ------
>    0x001A  ROHC Transport Header-compressed Packets         [RFC3095, 
>                                                              draft-ietf-rohc-over-reordering-03.txt]
>    0x001B  eCRTP Transport Header-compressed Packets        [RFC3545]
>    0x001C  IPHC Transport Header-compressed Packets         [RFC2507]
>    0x001D  cRTP Transport Header-compressed Packets         [RFC2508][Note 1]
> 
> 
> 
> [Note 1]   Although CRTP is viewed as having risks for a number
>   PW environments due to misordering and loss, it is registered
>   because of markets where commercial issues lead to its choice
>   In these circumstances, it must be implemented and deployed
>   with care.
> 
> -- Add Informational Reference to draft-ietf-rohc-over-reordering-03.txt
> ------
> 
> I added the i-d that gives the advice about improving ROHC for
> reordering to the references for ROHC.  This was a good idea derived 
> from Kristopher's email.
> 
> I couldn't decide there was urgency to record Kristofer's additional guidance
> IPHC and eCRTP here.  But his expertise on these convinced me that IPHC can
> be there without causing trouble, 
> 
> So I hope this is it for this material.
> 
> Now, about part 1 of my Discuss, if Luca or the group will respond, I'd
> love to settle this.
> 
> Allison
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:11:54 +0200

(Resending as Kristofer Sandlund's address was erronous)

Hi,

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:18:48 -0400

Magnus,

Have you read draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt?  The draft 
goes into pretty gory detail on how HC is done over PWs, including 
all of the header formats, signaling, and negotiations.  If what 
you're looking for isn't already in there, please comment on how we 
can improve the draft.

Thanks much,
Andy

----------

At 10/27/2005 16:11 +0200, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>    to that design, so Kristofer Sandlun's thoughtful 
>> codepoint    suggestion isn't an option.
>>reordering to the references for ROHC.  This was a good idea 
>>derived from Kristopher's email.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:03:54 -0400

Magnus,

Thanks - that's a great comment.  Actually, the registrations should 
probably reference BOTH the primary HC spec and the avt-hc-over-mpls 
draft.  We'll get that fixed.

Regarding the registrations, the PWE3 IANA draft already has already 
been populated from other PWE3 drafts (not yet IESG approved), and we 
also wanted to be included, since we anticipate a possibly 
substantial period between IESG approval of the PWE3 IANA draft and 
its publication (and actual population of the registries?) due to 
waiting for references.  There's substantial support in the AVT group 
for this draft, the draft has pretty well converged at this point, 
and we anticipate WG last call Real Soon Now (I believe Jerry was 
planning on requesting it during the Vancouver meeting).  Several 
revisions of the draft have also been submitted to PWE3 for review 
(as is obvious from which list this discussion is on :-).

Thanks again,
Andy

At 10/29/2005 15:42 +0200, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>Hi Andy,
>
>It is on my reading list (I have read the previous versions). My 
>objection is that if it is 
>draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt that defines how HC 
>mechanism X is put on PW, then the reference in the registration for 
>X should be to draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt and not 
>the primary HC specification which tells you nothing on how you do 
>HC over PW. This is a question of registration consistency. Having a 
>registry with references that don't allow you to understand why the 
>registration entry is present, is useless.
>
>If anything should be registered at this point, then at least marked 
>them as reserved for this purpose and have 
>draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol update those entries when 
>ready. This should primarily be done if someone intends to do 
>experiments with the current draft. If not I object to having any 
>entries put in there until IETF actually has agreed (IESG approval) 
>on how we are going to do HC over PW. So far this is not yet a done 
>deal, however we are getting closer.
>
>Am I missing something or are you just eager to populate the registry?
>
>Cheers
>
>Magnus
>
>
>Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>Magnus,
>>Have you read draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt?  The 
>>draft goes into pretty gory detail on how HC is done over PWs, 
>>including all of the header formats, signaling, and 
>>negotiations.  If what you're looking for isn't already in there, 
>>please comment on how we can improve the draft.
>>Thanks much,
>>Andy
>>----------

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:17:11 +0100

Hi Andy

Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> also wanted to be included, since we anticipate a possibly substantial 
> period between IESG approval of the PWE3 IANA draft and its publication 
> (and actual population of the registries?) due to waiting for 
> references.

First of all I would think the IANA actions will happen quite early in 
the process of publication. Secondly, any future addition into that 
registry can't overtake this document, thus I don't share your concerns 
with being possible to register the things from AVT draft. And thirdly 
we can use the registration rules as soon as they are approved by the IESG.

In summary I don't see a problem of having the AVT HC over MPLS draft 
register its own identifier in due time. That also avoids issues if the 
draft goes through changes that makes your pre-registration become 
erroneous.

   There's substantial support in the AVT group for this
> draft, the draft has pretty well converged at this point, and we 
> anticipate WG last call Real Soon Now (I believe Jerry was planning on 
> requesting it during the Vancouver meeting). 

I have reviewed it and as WG chair I can't accept it to go to WG last 
call in its current form. It is simply to badly written with a lot of 
ambiguities. I will post my comments to AVT on this. But the main thing 
is that the draft still reads more like an proposal to a solution, 
rather than being specification text that you can follow to implement 
the protocol in an interoperable fashion.

  Several revisions of the
> draft have also been submitted to PWE3 for review (as is obvious from 
> which list this discussion is on :-).
> 

Good, I want review from all involved parties. Please continue to review 
and post comments (to AVT please). You will get the announcement on WG 
last call when that happen.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:42:31 +0200

Hi Andy,

It is on my reading list (I have read the previous versions). My 
objection is that if it is draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt 
that defines how HC mechanism X is put on PW, then the reference in the 
registration for X should be to 
draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt and not the primary HC 
specification which tells you nothing on how you do HC over PW. This is 
a question of registration consistency. Having a registry with 
references that don't allow you to understand why the registration entry 
is present, is useless.

If anything should be registered at this point, then at least marked 
them as reserved for this purpose and have 
draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol update those entries when ready. 
This should primarily be done if someone intends to do experiments with 
the current draft. If not I object to having any entries put in there 
until IETF actually has agreed (IESG approval) on how we are going to do 
HC over PW. So far this is not yet a done deal, however we are getting 
closer.

Cheers

Magnus

Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> goes into pretty gory detail on how HC is done over PWs, including all 
> of the header formats, signaling, and negotiations.  If what you're 
> looking for isn't already in there, please comment on how we can improve 
> the draft.
> 
> Thanks much,
> Andy
> 
> ----------
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:09:43 -0500

Magnus,

We look forward to your comments on the AVT list.

Cheers,
Andy

----------

At 10/31/2005 10:17 +0100, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>Hi Andy
>
>Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>Magnus,
>>Thanks - that's a great comment.  Actually, the registrations 
>>should probably reference BOTH the primary HC spec and the 
>>avt-hc-over-mpls draft.  We'll get that fixed.
>>Regarding the registrations, the PWE3 IANA draft already has 
>>already been populated from other PWE3 drafts (not yet IESG 
>>approved), and we also wanted to be included, since we anticipate a 
>>possibly substantial period between IESG approval of the PWE3 IANA 
>>draft and its publication (and actual population of the 
>>registries?) due to waiting for references.
>
>First of all I would think the IANA actions will happen quite early 
>in the process of publication. Secondly, any future addition into 
>that registry can't overtake this document, thus I don't share your 
>concerns with being possible to register the things from AVT draft. 
>And thirdly we can use the registration rules as soon as they are 
>approved by the IESG.
>
>In summary I don't see a problem of having the AVT HC over MPLS 
>draft register its own identifier in due time. That also avoids 
>issues if the draft goes through changes that makes your 
>pre-registration become erroneous.
>
>>anticipate WG last call Real Soon Now (I believe Jerry was planning 
>>on requesting it during the Vancouver meeting).
>
>I have reviewed it and as WG chair I can't accept it to go to WG 
>last call in its current form. It is simply to badly written with a 
>lot of ambiguities. I will post my comments to AVT on this. But the 
>main thing is that the draft still reads more like an proposal to a 
>solution, rather than being specification text that you can follow 
>to implement the protocol in an interoperable fashion.
>
>  Several revisions of the
>>draft have also been submitted to PWE3 for review (as is obvious 
>>from which list this discussion is on :-).
>
>Good, I want review from all involved parties. Please continue to 
>review and post comments (to AVT please). You will get the 
>announcement on WG last call when that happen.
>
>Cheers
>
>Magnus Westerlund
>