Multi Protocol Label Switching Label Distribution Protocol Query Message Description
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
09 | (System) | Notify list changed from , to (None) |
2004-01-15
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2003-12-09
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2003-12-09
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2003-12-09
|
09 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to Dead from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Alex Zinin |
2003-12-09
|
09 | Alex Zinin | The chairs withdrew the draft. |
2003-08-14
|
09 | Alex Zinin | pinged chairs & authors |
2003-06-30
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-09.txt |
2003-06-27
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-08.txt |
2003-06-18
|
09 | Alex Zinin | IESG feedback: RH (DISCUSS): > I do not like the Abstract. I propose: > This document describes the encoding and procedures for three … IESG feedback: RH (DISCUSS): > I do not like the Abstract. I propose: > This document describes the encoding and procedures for three > new Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) messages: Query Message, > Query-Reply Message and Partial Query-Reply Message. A Label > Edge Router (LER) sends a Query message when it needs information > about an established Label Switched Path (LSP). The Query message > can be used to request information about LDP LSPs as well as > Constraint-Based Label Switched Paths (CR-LSPs). The response to > the query is encoded into the Query-Reply and Partial Query-Reply > messages. > The Introduction should be rewritten so that is does not depend on the > Abstract to define terms. AZ: OK, will work with the authors. > In the security considerations, the document says: > The Query mechanism inherits the same security mechanism > described in Section 4.0 of [4]. > Section 4.0 of RFC 3036 is the IANA Considerations! I assume that Section > 5 should have been referenced. AZ: Ditto > Section 5 of RFC 3036 also said that the peers need to be trusted to label > properly. What are the impacts on these new protocol messages if this > trust is misplaced? This topic should be discussed in the security > considerations section. AZ: What do you mean by "trust is misplaced"? That we mistakenly trust a compromised peer? RH: If a peer does mislabel, what are the consequences? Can an inappropriately labeled message cause a bad state? And, if so, will this bad state be passed on to other peers. SMB (DISCUSS): > This text from Section 7 doesn't make sense to me: > > If the > Reply message is full, TCP will take care of it by segmenting and > re-assembling the message. > > What does it mean for a Reply message to be full? The obvious answer > is that the reply is longer than the 2^16 bytes permitted by the > Message Length field (btw, the definition of it should state explicitly > whether the length field and the preceeding two bytes are counted in > the length. I suspect not, but it should be stated more clearly.). > But if the message is too long for that, TCP can't possibly help. If > it's not a 2^16 bytes issue, what does the sentence mean? > > Why is a 1-byte hop count encoded as a TLV? (Do we really need 2^15 > possible query types? Perhaps the hop count should go there.) > > I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but what is the ultimate > destination of Query messages? Is it in the Query TLV? But the draft > suggests that a new label is swapped in at each hop. TH (NO-OB with comments): > In general I think the document is weak on how this will be used. > I think it would be very useful to describe what use these > responses will be if some of the data is missing; that is, if I > have an LSP with 18 LSRs, one of which honors the U bit, > what can I make of the data from the ones which report? > If 3 are configured not to return data? If 5 return partial > data? > > It looks like recommending setting the U bit to 0 > with this would be a reasonable thing to do, as at least then you know > where the query crapped out. > > In 6.1, 7.1 and 8.1, "last-in-fist-out" should be "last-in-first-out". > > PHP is used without expansion (penultimate hop-popping, from the description). HTA (NO-OB with question): what are the possible interactions with MPLS load-balancing? |
2003-06-18
|
09 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation :: AD Followup by Zinin, Alex |
2003-06-18
|
09 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation :: AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Zinin, Alex |
2003-06-12
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-07.txt |
2003-06-06
|
09 | Alex Zinin | Adding to the telechat. |
2003-06-06
|
09 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Zinin, Alex |
2003-04-21
|
09 | Jacqueline Hargest | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Hargest, Jacqueline |
2003-04-21
|
09 | Jacqueline Hargest | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by Hargest, Jacqueline |
2003-03-22
|
09 | Alex Zinin | taking over after Scott |
2003-03-22
|
09 | Alex Zinin | Shepherding AD has been changed to Zinin, Alex from Bradner, Scott |
2003-03-07
|
09 | Jacqueline Hargest | Status date has been changed to 2003-3-25 from |
2003-03-07
|
09 | Jacqueline Hargest | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Hargest, Jacqueline |
2003-03-07
|
09 | (System) | Last call sent |
2003-03-04
|
09 | Scott Bradner | 2003-03-04 - request last call |
2003-03-04
|
09 | Scott Bradner | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Bradner, Scott |
2003-03-04
|
09 | Scott Bradner | 2003-03-04 - request to publish as PS |
2003-03-04
|
09 | Scott Bradner | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2003-03-04
|
09 | Scott Bradner | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Bradner, Scott |
2003-03-03
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-06.txt |
2002-12-06
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-05.txt |
2002-10-26
|
09 | Scott Bradner | 2002-10-18 Dave answers that he will follow up on this dra |
2002-10-26
|
09 | Scott Bradner | by sob |
2002-10-26
|
09 | Scott Bradner | 2002-10-13 - loa poked Dave |
2002-10-26
|
09 | Scott Bradner | by sob |
2002-10-13
|
09 | Scott Bradner | 2002-10-13 - update from Loa - in WG discussion |
2002-10-13
|
09 | Scott Bradner | by sob |
2002-06-24
|
09 | Scott Bradner | Draft Added by sob |
2002-05-07
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-04.txt |
2001-09-04
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-03.txt |
2001-05-15
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-02.txt |
2000-11-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-01.txt |
2000-10-23
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-00.txt |