Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07

Lou Berger <> Mon, 27 October 2014 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6771A8BC2 for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JKpRGd22ki5o for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 670481A90FF for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13505 invoked by uid 0); 27 Oct 2014 18:22:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) ( by with SMTP; 27 Oct 2014 18:22:48 -0000
Received: from ([]) by cmgw4 with id 8QNg1p00M2SSUrH01QNjZY; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:22:47 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=fdw+lSgF c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=u9EReRu7m0cA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=PCi_J6wGlEnCf0jOvugA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Hg15Viv33x54wVGHzN4LsEcBNnUSiQ2am5hElF8rzmI=; b=jYkneG4q/7E5vMECFSnsP/IL6lo5GurfXFf2ZWx9cg0gO2vdOvQoJBI0s7KSD8vAN7NfK2mcbx0N6bQL/kMkbzOSrH6GQRmw+VAtakp3Xtg+KsH0utkEgBS/IQS4Kwvb;
Received: from ([]:60862 helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1XiowC-0002pt-OG; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:22:40 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:22:49 -0400
From: Lou Berger <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <>, OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Cc: CCAMP <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:25:19 -0000

    Much thanks, I think this rev addresses my comments.  Do you have
any outstanding actions/plans on the draft or do you believe it is now
ready for LC?


On 10/27/2014 2:14 PM, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote:
> Lou,
> v-09 has just gone out. I think we've covered all the outstanding comments from you - please let us know if that's not the case :)
> Cheers
> Matt
>> Oscar,
>>     Much thanks.  I expect that your next version (which addresses these
>> and any other comments, perhaps even before HI) will be ready for LC. It
>> probably would be good to review the changes with the WG in HI,
>> particularly the completely new section 1.1. to ensure consensus  --
>> perhaps even just 1 or 2 slides.
>> Lou
>> On 10/23/2014 12:19 PM, OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS wrote:
>>> Dear Lou,
>>>         Thank you very much for the comments.
>>>         We had some changes in
>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07 ready since a couple of weeks
>>> ago that we did not find time to put together and complete. We have
>>> just sent this version. Some of your comments seems are already taken
>> into account in this version. Summarizing:
>>>         - Avoiding RFC 2119 language in lower case: done! In fact, it
>>> has been reviewed that all RFC 2119 keywords are used as they are
>> supposed to.
>>>         - Section is missing handling of RRO too big: To be added in
>> next version
>>>         - Text for multiple IDs: A sentence indicating multiple SRLG
>>> Ids can be present added. Still need to add a text explaining  the
>>> conditions to include multiple Ids. However, I think the conditions
>>> fit better in the procedure section.
>>>         - Reference for CPS: Done! Added a whole paragraph explaining
>>> the collection with CPS, and reference added.
>>>         - Removing policy processing in the resv. To be added in the
>> next version.
>>>         I hope we can be soon in Last Call..
>>>         Óscar
>>> El 23/10/14 00:07, "Lou Berger" <> escribió:
>>>> Authors,
>>>>       I think we still have some unresolved comments from May:
>>>>>> - you use "should not" in lower case in a few spots in this section.
>>>>>>  While I think your usage *is* correct, my experience is that
>>>>>> someone  (probably in the IESG) will tell you that these need to be
>>>>>> in upper  case at some point.  Of course, they'll be wrong, and
>>>>>> this will have  to be explained.  I suggest avoiding 2119 language
>>>>>> in lower case where  easily avoided.  How about s/should not be/is
>>>>>> not to be
>>>> The above comment also applies to "must".
>>>> Your current of 2119 language is a bit inconsistent. I think you
>>>> should review current uses of 2119 language and ensure that such
>>>> usage is limited to (protocol) mechanisms, behavior and
>>>> interoperability.  If doesn't the language is most likely informative
>>>> in nature and should avoid 2119 conformance language.
>>>>>> - The section is missing handling of RRO to big. Perhaps add it at
>>>>>> ~line  330.
>>>> A few of new comments:
>>>> - The current text of section 4.1 could be read as only one ID may be
>>>> present in the SO.  you should explain under what conditions multiple
>>>> IDs are to be added.
>>>> -  Please provide a reference for "Confidential Path message. Segment
>>>> (CPS)"
>>>> - (should have caught this one before, i.e., is in old text) In
>>>> Section
>>>> 5.1 it looks like you are applying policy on both Path and Resv
>>>> processing ("When a node receives a Resv message ... if local policy
>>>> determines ...). Given the "SRLG Recording Rejected" PathErr required
>>>> earlier in the section, is this really needed?  Are you assuming
>>>> separate upstream/downstream policies?  (Which would seem to be
>>>> overkill.) Covering a policy change race condition, something else? I
>>>> suspect the policy processing text on resv isn't needed.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Lou
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> ________________________________
>>> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario,
>> puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso
>> exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el
>> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización,
>> divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de
>> la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos
>> que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su
>> destrucción.
>>> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and
>> confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
>> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
>> this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to
>> the sender that you have received this communication in error and then
>> delete it.
>>> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu
>>> destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é
>>> para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa
>>> senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura,
>>> utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida
>>> em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro,
>>> rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
>>> proceda a sua destruição
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list