[CCAMP] Fwd: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-05

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 19 March 2011 00:27 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=WuRCXdEIT+8B7jYITGWqV3h0vSvutBiCvxHcdPhYkAjPo/9HkSg5mDHq9SCkhykgrn FL+/h9lAIgLUBdO2J+WsWHTm7YDs+wMHLCpENnOn2Xc1dsaPUAXiiGCCpcmsJ8MZI4jI eksbOn1tq057NJtPG+QkS868f+5bm7E2cvKEE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimFyzjB=87yMzvUs3hM2sCRZ0Rx3v8zMAH8SFva@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimFyzjB=87yMzvUs3hM2sCRZ0Rx3v8zMAH8SFva@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:29:16 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTing3XVFq1uGrx2mUkbYE9xEt9AEg377Wq0JVbwe@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec50163b3130f48049ecafcd3"
Subject: [CCAMP] Fwd: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-05
Precedence: list

Sorry, wrong address was originally used.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:27 PM
Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-05
To: Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>,
donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com, hejia@huawei.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org


Dear Authors and All,
please kindly consider my comments to the document:

   - in the Introduction OAM interpreted as "Operations and Management".
   Though it is one of possible interpretations of the popular abbreviation the
   "Operation, Administration, and Maintenance" is recommended by
   draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-07. "Operations and Management" might be
   abbreviated as OaMgmt.
   - Section 3, para 4 potential typo - "s\derived form some\derived from
   some\"
   - Section 4.1 RE: setting of "OAM MIP entities desired". Only setting of
   this flag in the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object discussed in the document. I
   think that the "OAM MIP entities desired" can be set in LSP_ATTRIBUTES even
   if "OAM MEP entities desired" is set in LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and
   not in LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object. As result, no error will be generated if any
   LSR doesn't support MIP functions.
   - Section 4.2 RE: use of OAM Configuration TLV. The text on p.14 "Only
   when that is set MAY an "OAM Configuration TLV" be included in the
   LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object" might be interpreted as if
   the OAM Configuration TLV can be included into either one of objects. I
   think that this is not the case and, in fact, both objects might be present
   and each have OAM Configuration TLV. If that's the case, then "s\or\and/or\"
   might be acceptable to clarify.
   - Section 4.2.1 I think that another bit to signify support of Fault
   Management can be defined in the document and use bit #4 for that.

Regards,
Greg

[CCAMP] Fwd: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-con… Greg Mirsky