IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 30 October 2014 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE03E1A003B for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.067
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.067 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, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HkxVWajlnoxC for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 015AB1A0054 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 12606 invoked by uid 0); 30 Oct 2014 12:55:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 30 Oct 2014 12:55:37 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id 9QvN1p00h2SSUrH01QvRMz; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:55:36 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=F5TEKMRN 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=8t2rz4PNTsQQl-9iIyMA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=VbV4y3f55wMj0W/QDgxjeJ+aqt3wN6c+oxXEjZ3r4uE=; b=qgk4JVyB8AujHVHJLTKtp3qogI9E54cYTpWxtoG4Ahwzo2VPshTk8hI4eqbhcqb5Vp8OfrUS/nORisGBTpuGH9Sndauaqxdt1tmWdSHPUQbEHpsBhJqV+ZEFwGz1r0Sm;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:48063 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1XjpG7-0000Kf-HG; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:55:23 -0600
Message-ID: <54523539.60101@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:55:21 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb@tools.ietf.org>
References: <20141020074350.21488.53873.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C92733758033@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <544805C0.8060103@labn.net> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C92733759B2E@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5448F9E7.6050703@labn.net> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C9273375C339@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <544E910C.8080307@labn.net> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C9273375DA63@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <54513D69.3030807@labn.net> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C9273375FB7E@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C9273375FC71@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C9273375FC71@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/R6uVsG6r4S1j6Ipun_zF4Epe3-A
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:55:41 -0000

Jie,
    See below.

On 10/30/2014 2:28 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
>>> ...
>>> > > I see that you don't list the OAM Flows Enabled (M), OAM Alarms
>>> > > Enabled
>>> > > (O) bits defined in RFC7260.  You should include these in your next revision.
>>> > > The omission makes we want to confirm my understanding of
>>> > > your intent.   As I read this document, it is your intent that: generic
>>> > > lock instruct places no specific requirements on the existing flags--
>>> > > OAM Flows Enabled (M), OAM Alarms Enabled (O), (protection) Lockout
>>> > > (L).  You make this point implicitly by not using this flags.
>>> > >
>>> > > Is my understanding correct?
>> > 
>> > We forgot to list the new Flags by mistake, will add them in next revision.
>> > 
>> > Yes we intend to make the generic LI&LB not depend on the existing flags for
>> > proactive TP OAM.
> Sorry in previous mail I mixed up draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext with RFC7260. While still our intent is that generic LI&LB has no specific requirement on those existing flags. 
No problem. 

It sounds like the next version will resolve the (minor) open issues.
Correct? 

Thanks,
Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email