Re: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

Thank you John for the review.

Regards,
Rakesh

-----Original Message-----
From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:16 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi); ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

This sounds extremely reasonable.

Yours irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:21 AM
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] Review Request For Changes in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls- 
> tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
> 
> Dear WG,
> 
> We like to request a review from the WG on the changes in version 04 
> of the draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp compared to 
> version 03.
> 
> The majority of the proposed changes are around the format and how to 
> populate the extended association object as listed below.
> 
> Note: Based on the feedbacks received so far, changes for items 4 and 
> 5 below will be reverted.
> 
> 1. Association-ID:
> It was not clear from reading the version 03 of the draft how this 
> field is populated in the extended association object. New version 04 
> proposes to populate this field from the locally provisioned value. As 
> this value is identically provisioned on both ends, it provides a 
> field to tie the two (forward and reverse) LSPs on end-points.
> 
> 2. IPv4 association source:
> New version 04 adds a tie breaker rule for double sided provisioned 
> LSPs.
> 
> 3. Global association source:
> New version clarifies the usage for this field siting information from
> RFC6370 and other mentioned drafts. No new rule added.
> 
> 4. Association Type and Association Flags:
> New version proposes to use one association Type for single and double 
> sided provisioned bi-directional LSPs and define association flags for 
> them. These changes will be reverted as they are not necessary. There 
> will not be Association Flags field in the next version.
> 
> 5. Support for co-routed LSPs:
> New version 04 defines a flag and handling for co-routed LSPs. Based 
> on the WG feedback received, these changes will be reverted.
> 
> 6. Extended Association ID (Address):
> New version 04 proposes to use an IP address as extended association 
> ID
> (address) as an additional identifier. Previous version 03 defines a 
> variable length field but did not mention what parameters can be added 
> there.
> A tie breaker rule is defined for double sided provisioned value.
> 
> 7. Path Protection object:
> Version 03 of the draft vaguely mentioned and assumed of using 
> protection object for path protection. New version 04 adds some texts 
> to clarify it, no new rule is added.
> 
> 8. Auto-tunnel mesh:
> New version 04 adds a section to elaborate on a use case for auto- 
> tunnel mesh. This is added as an FYI and can be removed if WG thinks 
> so.
> 
> 9. Clarification for Inter-AS LSPs:
> I believe there was an email exchange between Lou and Fei to clarify 
> the relationship with draft I-D, draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-
> tunnel-num. A section is added in version-04 to address this. Please 
> review the added text.
> 
> Please advise us on above changes. Based on the consensus, we will 
> update the draft accordingly.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:53 AM
> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
> Cc: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn; jingrq@ctbri.com.cn
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte- 
> ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-
> lsp-04.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the 
> IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
> Revision:	 04
> Title:		 RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs
> Creation date:	 2012-08-15
> WG ID:		 ccamp
> Number of pages: 17
> URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-
> mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-
> tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-
> rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04
> Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-
> mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04
> 
> Abstract:
>    The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document 
> [RFC5654],
>    describes that MPLS-TP MUST support associated bidirectional point-
>    to-point LSPs.
> 
>    This document provides a method to bind two unidirectional Label
>    Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP.  The
>    association is achieved by defining the new Association Type in the
>    Extended ASSOCIATION object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp