draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 13 skipping to change at page 1, line 13
Network Work group N. Nainar Network Work group N. Nainar
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro Internet-Draft C. Pignataro
Updates: 8287 (if approved) Cisco Systems, Inc. Updates: 8287 (if approved) Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track F. Iqbal Intended status: Standards Track F. Iqbal
Expires: February 9, 2020 Individual Expires: February 9, 2020 Individual
A. Vainshtein A. Vainshtein
ECI Telecom ECI Telecom
August 8, 2019 August 8, 2019
RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-03 draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04
Abstract Abstract
RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier
(SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack
Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure to Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure to
handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the
length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in
the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability
skipping to change at page 3, line 14 skipping to change at page 3, line 14
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC8402], [RFC8029], This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC8402], [RFC8029],
[RFC8287] and so the readers are expected to be familiar with the [RFC8287] and so the readers are expected to be familiar with the
same. same.
3. Requirements notation 3. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174] "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
4. Length field clarification for Segment ID Sub-TLVs 4. Length field clarification for Segment ID Sub-TLVs
Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines 3 different Segment ID Sub-TLVs that Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines 3 different Segment ID Sub-TLVs that
will be included in Target FEC Stack TLV defined in [RFC8029]. The will be included in Target FEC Stack TLV defined in [RFC8029]. The
length of each Sub-TLVs MUST be calculated as defined in this length of each Sub-TLVs MUST be calculated as defined in this
section. section.
The TLVs representation defined in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of The TLVs representation defined in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of
[RFC8287] are updated to clarify the length calculation as shown in [RFC8287] are updated to clarify the length calculation as shown in
 End of changes. 2 change blocks. 
4 lines changed or deleted 5 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/