Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08

"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <> Thu, 24 July 2014 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D971B2866 for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1pXnfPhX0bfs for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B6821B2869 for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1958; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406230394; x=1407439994; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vR6jAsJzKsdMzLib/t3TvUzqT79Zdd2tKIPhrXjYx4E=; b=DG/90vUl03T8f7zxlbVIbTrq6ZRawNyvpifbxaY7+w/MG5YYJ1nw/0JI 5wAk3JZTDc770DgR0GV46/7kssoYTeOJIXHBs7B5PUDeZMUdsQjEtT4EY OFI/wMuqB57eDb1vkYls/+JCNUegdeQ4D9Lg5oOlDbRqZX7tPHNqyN6pt k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,725,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="63777014"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2014 19:33:13 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6OJXD6P011182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:33:13 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:13 -0500
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <>, Lou Berger <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08
Thread-Index: AQHPa8UzrV5Nu6AqB0qKAOs67vHbb5s/tkIAgHBvKgA=
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:33:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-08
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: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:33:17 -0000

Hi Deborah,

Thank you for reviewing the document and providing the comments.

Please see inline.. <RG>.

On 2014-05-13 10:34 PM, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <> wrote:

>Hi Rakesh,
>A couple of additional comments:
>- you swapped [Extended] to (Extended) in Section 3 (and later in the
>document), whereas in Section 4, you removed the brackets. As Lou said
>previously, this is not needed and it is confusing as it's not aligned
>with RFC6780.

<RG> Addressed as part of Lou's comments. Please let me know if latest
revision is OK.

>- Section 3 on provisioning and signaling procedures needs 2219 language.

<RG> Section 3 is a definition of terms/overview/information kind of
section and hence it does not use normative language. Section 4 and 5 are
object formats and procedure/rules and are using normative language.

>- you changed the text in the introduction, and now have MPLS-TP
>requirement 14 twice listed. The previous version was better organized.
>It seems the rationale for repeating requirement 14 was to add a new
>paragraph describing Internet services applications. As this document is
>on meeting the referenced MPLS-TP requirements, this is out-of-context.
>Suggest going back to the previous version's introduction.

<RG> Good catch. I revised the Introduction section to remove the
duplication. It is good to see all the requirements listed in one section
and hence the change.

>- As Lou previously suggested, for the compatibility, you noted
>compatibility aspects for intermediate nodes, it would be also helpful to
>add RFC's 6780 processing rules for egress nodes not supporting the
>Extended Association C-Type.

<RG> New revision has the text. Please advise if it is OK.

Many thanks,

>CCAMP mailing list