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/