[CCAMP] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-02

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 17 February 2010 20:57 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=qtkeDcURC2F9VrfYhUMutADgd5mKSEXBE6lqwDNw9Z+Xa2Wgx2zf1zsCs6CMW5PUcT JWGuzDMsZgnxmBZjztVtVc2LWDEVRMUc8Bq0MakDjqJO1K+Ca0rkphn4yx36Q9zzQ1WT tjYrKpCRcHX3ynD0jySnVVpu5KcowGkJg/Zs8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:59:18 -0800
Message-ID: <787be2781002171259x1c9a3536k7dafabed3ab99f66@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>, Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net>, David Ward <dward@juniper.net>, "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tom.nadeau@bt.com>, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015175caa56afb286047fd21f5b"
Subject: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-02
Precedence: list

Dear Authors and All,
below are my comments to the document:

   - Abstract - "widely deployed" to replace "widely deployment"
   - Section 2.1, Figure 2 - Section 3 RFC 5586 states that if ACH TLVs
   might be present then ACH TLV Header must be present. The Length of ACH TLV
   Header may set to zero in no ACH TLVs are actually present in the given
   packet. Said that I turn to figure 2 that presents LSP Ping packet with ACH
   format. The ACH TLV Header is not presented in the format even though
   presence of ACH TLVs is indicated. I think that proper LSP Ping with ACH
   format will look 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 2
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                    MPLS Label stack
                     |
       |
                                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                              GAL
                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |0 0 0 1|Version|   Reserved    |     LSP-Ping Channel Type     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                   ACH TLV Header
                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                          ACH TLVs
                         |
       |
                                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                    LSP-Ping payload
                    |
       |
                                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   - Section 2.3 discusses optional use of Source Address TLV but the
   sentence "Only 1 source address TLV MUST be present in a LSP-Ping packet."
   may be interpreted as the Source Address TLV is mandatory. I propose to
   change "MUST" to "MAY" in the sentence
   - Figure 3 - same comments regarding ACH TLV Header in the format as for
   Figure 2

Regards,
Greg

[CCAMP] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping… Greg Mirsky
Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-… Nitin Bahadur
Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-… Greg Mirsky