Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-09.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 17 October 2012 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D9921F86AA for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.681
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.684, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tBNQj4QdXIaN for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B2FE21F86A7 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14219 invoked by uid 0); 17 Oct 2012 18:22:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 2012 18:22:16 -0000
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=O+Hsx7UOWk0r/kNXQFC4kqxwndGqJc020IaBGjIdRRs=; b=KX0Os2+zpuNGwnrZe/rQo16/OaCB1uIKhE50SYeNbBtaJHIpBxvQDZxqlY0msR1ll7UmQnoXn6axRa6+7jXLv5xynCzqTdafoLd/5en48RZ4/ujRaC5LKXjXr+L1QcO2;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:47728 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TOYFz-0005P4-Tu; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:22:16 -0600
Message-ID: <507EF751.109@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:22:09 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?windows-1252?Q?Pontus_Sk=F6ldstr=F6m?= <Pontus.Skoldstrom@acreo.se>
References: <20121007182354.19033.17145.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5072FEC1.7020108@labn.net> <59AB558A089035438998A3EE6321ACBEAF72@ESESSMB203.ericsson.se>, <5077174E.8000407@labn.net> <5F606CA13780E9419D0CFFE732DDACE12D0A886805@acreoexc01.ad.acreo.se>
In-Reply-To: <5F606CA13780E9419D0CFFE732DDACE12D0A886805@acreoexc01.ad.acreo.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-09.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:22:41 -0000

Pontus,

Please see below.


On 10/17/2012 7:18 AM, Pontus Sköldström wrote:
> Hi all, 
> 
> Based on the comments from Lou we've made some minor updates to the text, changes are shown in red/green at this link:
> http://diffchecker.com/7g8cJ8zI
> 
> If there are any objections to these updates please let us know ASAP, if there's no comments we'll upload the suggested changes later this week.
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Pontus Sköldström, M.Sc.
> Research Scientist
> Netlab - Networking and Transmission Laboratory
> +46 8 632 7731
> pontus.skoldstrom@acreo.se
> 
> Acreo AB – Part of Swedish ICT
> Electrum 236, 164 40 Kista, Sweden
> www.acreo.se
> ________________________________________
> From: Lou Berger [lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 21:00
> To: Elisa Bellagamba
> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext@tools.ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; Pontus Sköldström
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-09.txt
> 
> WG,
>         Please review and comment on changes.  See
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-10.txt
> 
> Recall that this document is post WG LC.
> 
> Elisa,
>         Thank you for the update.  Some comments.
> - Please review IDNITs and ensure that the document is clean, see
> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-10.txt
> 

Have all the nits been fixed?

> - Missing metrics:  line 684 (using lines numbers from nits URL),

okay.


> 
> - Threshold definition, lines 687/8:   I really don't think these
> definitions are adequate to ensure consistent implementation. How about:

>  Loss Threshold: indicates the MaxLMIntervalLoss threshold (measured in
>  packets) as defined in [RFC6374].
> 
 Your text now reads:
    Loss Threshold: the threshold value of measured lost packets per
    measurement over which action(s) SHOULD be triggered.  Configuration
    of triggered action(s) is out of scope for this document but may
    include signaling an NMS, triggering protection switching, etc.

I'm sorry, I just can't parse this.  Also, why not refer back to [RFC6374]?

> - Line 742-4, Delay Threshold: is this one way or two way delay?  I
> don't see how you can specify a default.
> 

Your text now reads:
    Delay Threshold: the threshold value of measured two-way delay (in
    milliseconds) over which action(s) SHOULD be triggered.
    Configuration of triggered action(s) is out of scope for this
    document but may include signaling an NMS, triggering protection
    switching, etc.

Okay.

> - line 784, Refresh Timer.  This should have a reference and perhaps
> just say "MUST carry the same value used in the Refresh Timer field
> defined in [rfc6427]."

Your text now reads:
   Refresh Timer: indicates the refresh timer of fault indication
   messages, in seconds.  The value MUST be between 1 to 20 seconds as
   specified for the Refresh Timer field in [RFC6427].  If the edge LSR
   receiving the Path message can not support the value it can reply
   with a higher timer value.

does "can" mean "MAY" or "SHOULD"?

Lou

> 
> You might want to discuss your proposed changes on the list and get
> agreement before rev'ing the document again.  Of course, rev numbers are
> cheap too...
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 10/11/2012 11:46 AM, Elisa Bellagamba wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lou,
>>
>> we have just uploaded version 10 which is inserting back the refresh timer field in accordance with RFC 6427 and fixing the TBD values to the ones recommended in RFC 6375.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Elisa
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: den 8 oktober 2012 18:27
>> To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext@tools.ietf.org
>> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-09.txt
>>
>> Authors,
>>       I see you still have some default values called out as TBD.
>> Can you please send your proposed defaults to the WG so that we can ensure consensus on these? (Obviously, these need to be filled in before any publication request.)
>>
>> Also, I see you removed the units from the Refresh Timer field.  Was this intentional?  I think some unit of measure is needed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
>>
>> On 10/7/2012 2:23 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>  This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF.
>>>
>>>      Title           : Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP-TE
>>>      Author(s)       : Elisa Bellagamba
>>>                           Loa Andersson
>>>                           Pontus Skoldstrom
>>>                           Dave Ward
>>>                           Attila Takacs
>>>      Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-09.txt
>>>      Pages           : 22
>>>      Date            : 2012-10-07
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP
>>>    Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a
>>>    given LSP using a set of TLVs that are carried by the RSVP-TE
>>>    protocol.
>>>
>>>    This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
>>>    (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
>>>    Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
>>>    Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
>>>    capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-
>>> ext
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-09
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-
>>> ext-09
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>