Subject: RE: Three last calls

From: "Bilel Jamoussi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:03:12 -0500

Ohba-san,

The Message ID TLV is not needed.
It will be fixed in the final version of the draft.

Bilel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 7:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Three last calls

In draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-02.txt, the CR-LDP Label Request Message is
defined as :

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Label Request (0x0401)   |      Message Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     FEC TLV                                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID TLV  (mandatory)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     LSPID TLV            (CR-LDP, mandatory)  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     ER-TLV               (CR-LDP, optional)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Traffic  TLV         (CR-LDP, optional)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Pinning TLV          (CR-LDP, optional)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Resource Class TLV (CR-LDP, optional)     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Pre-emption  TLV     (CR-LDP, optional)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Is the Message ID TLV really needed?  
Sorry if someone has already pointed out this.

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: manikantan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:16:31 +0530

Hello 

I noticed the following typos in the draft <draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-02.txt>

1) Section 4.1 Page 10
The statement in the draft is 
"   Type
        A two-byte field carrying the value of the ER-TLV type whichis
        0x800."
"whichis" is to be modified to "which is"

2) Section 4.4 Page 16
Words "default" and "decreasing" are present as "defualt" and "decerasing" respectively. they can be modified.

3) This is change with respect to the status code values when compared to crldp-01.txt draft

The status codes in crldp-02.txt are as follows
         Status Code                                       Type
         --------------------------------------         ----------
         Bad Explicit Routing TLV Error                 0x44000001
         Bad Strict Node Error                          0x44000002
         Bad Loose  Node Error                          0x44000003
         Bad Initial ER-Hop Error                       0x44000004
         Resource Unavailable                           0x44000005
         Traffic Parameters Unavailable                 0x44000006
         Setup abort (Label Request Aborted in [1])     0x04000015
         Modify request not supported                   0x44000008

The status code in crldp-01.txt are as follows
      Status Code                                       Type
      --------------------------------------         ----------
      Bad Explicit Routing TLV Error                 0x04000001
      Bad Strict Node Error                          0x04000002
      Bad Loose  Node Error                          0x04000003
      Bad Initial ER-Hop Error                       0x04000004
      Resource Unavailable                           0x04000005
      Traffic Parameters Unavailable                 0x04000006
      Setup abort                                    0x04000007

a) Are the changes "0x04" to "0x44" done intentionally?

b) If so the status code for "Setup abort (Label Request Aborted in [1])" is "0x04000015" which happens to be different from others. 
Is the change intentional too?

c) The Setup abort status code as defined in ldp-05.txt is 0x00000015 where as in crldp-02.txt it is 0x04000015. Are the two types to be treated same ? or there any differences?

4) The CRLSP FEC Element encoding definition in crldp-02.txt is as follows
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0|          FEC(0x0100)      |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | CR-LSP (4)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where as the CRLSP FEC Element encoding definition in crldp-01.txt is as follows
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |U|F|          FEC(0x0100)      |      Length                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | CR-LSP (4)    |          Reserved                             |
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Does the new definition indicates that the reserved bytes are not to be present in CRLSP-FEC TLV? and the length = 1 indicating 1 byte? or has it been missed out?

Sorry if the above have been repeated.

thanks in advance
with best regards
mani
(S.Manikantan)

-----Original Message-----
From:	Bilel Jamoussi [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, September 07, 1999 5:33 PM
To:	'Yoshihiro Ohba'; [email-masked]
Subject:	RE: Three last calls

Ohba-san,

Bilel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 7:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Three last calls

   0                   1                   2                   3

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: "Bilel Jamoussi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:41:14 -0500

Manikantan,
<<

Hello 

1) Section 4.1 Page 10

2) Section 4.4 Page 16
Words "default" and "decreasing" are present as "defualt" and "decerasing"
respectively. they can be modified.

Thanks for catching typos 1) and 2)
<<

3) This is change with respect to the status code values when compared to
crldp-01.txt draft

Yes. The setting of the EF bits has changed from 00 to 01.
'E' bit MUST be cleared (non-fatal) and 'F' bit must be set (forward).
<<

b) If so the status code for "Setup abort (Label Request Aborted in [1])" is
"0x04000015" which happens to be different from others. 
Is the change intentional too?

Label Request Aborted in [1]  was added in a later version of LDP.
Since, it has he same meaning as (Setup abort 0x04000007) that was in
crldp-01.txt,
Eric suggested that we align the two.
<<

c) The Setup abort status code as defined in ldp-05.txt is 0x00000015 where
as in crldp-02.txt it is 0x04000015. Are the two types to be treated same ?
or there any differences?

based on the reply in b), it should be changed to 0x00000015 instead of
0x04000015.
<<

where as the CRLSP FEC Element encoding definition in crldp-01.txt is as
follows
      0                   1                   2                   3

Does the new definition indicates that the reserved bytes are not to be
present in CRLSP-FEC TLV? and the length = 1 indicating 1 byte? or has it
been missed out?

This issue was brought up during the previous last call. The suggestion was
to align with the wild card FEC Element encoding.
<<

thanks in advance
with best regards
mani
(S.Manikantan)

Thanks,
Bilel.
<<

-----Original Message-----
From:	Bilel Jamoussi [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, September 07, 1999 5:33 PM
To:	'Yoshihiro Ohba'; [email-masked]
Subject:	RE: Three last calls

Ohba-san,

Bilel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 7:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Three last calls

   0                   1                   2                   3

Yoshihiro Ohba