Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt

[[e-mail]]

Hi Lou

Thanks for the clarification, v-05 is uploaded with the filename unchanged



A new version of I-D, 
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-05.txt
has been successfully submitted by Fei Zhang and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:                 draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num
Revision:                 05
Title:                            RSVP-TE Identification of MPLS-TP 
Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP
Creation date:            2012-10-12
WG ID:                            ccamp
Number of pages: 8
URL:             
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-05.txt

Status:          
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num

Htmlized:        
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-05

Diff:            
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-05


Abstract:
   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
   specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
   Z9-Tunnel_Num for co-routed bidirectional LSP, which is not covered
   by the current specifications, like [RFC3209], [RFC3473].  This
   document defines Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engnieering
   (RSVP-TE) identification of MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional LSP.

Thanks

Fei
 



Lou Berger <[e-mail]> 
2012-10-10 19:00

收件人
[e-mail]
抄送
[e-mail], "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <[e-mail]>, 
"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>, 
[e-mail], [e-mail], "[e-mail]" 
<[e-mail]>
主题
Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt






fyi - changing the title in the text doesn't require a change in the
filename, and such a change just confuses things/people...

On 10/10/2012 2:57 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Lou
> 
> We have finished the editing according to your suggestion, please help
> review the draft to see whether another roll of revision is needed.
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-zvxg-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-id-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Fei Zhang and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:                  draft-zvxg-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-id
> Revision:                  00
> Title:                                   RSVP-TE Identification of
> MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP
> Creation date:                  2012-10-12
> WG ID:                                   Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 8
> URL: 
> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zvxg-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-id-00.txt

> Status: 
>  http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zvxg-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-id
> Htmlized: 
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zvxg-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-id-00
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
>   specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
>   Z9-Tunnel_Num for co-routed bidirectional LSP, which is not covered
>   by the current specifications, like [RFC3209], [RFC3473].  This
>   document defines Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engnieering
>   (RSVP-TE) identification of MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional LSP.
> 
> 
> Thanks and best regards 
> 
> ;)
> 
> The authors
> 
> 
> *Lou Berger <[e-mail]>*
> 
> 2012-10-09 02:11
> 
> 
> 收件人
>                [e-mail], "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" 
<[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <[e-mail]>
> 抄送
> 
> 主题
>                Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action:
> draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fei, Authors,
>                 I think you have the document scoped to match the
> discussion.  I'm
> personally still having a hard time with parsing the document.  I think
> I know what you mean to say, it's just that the document isn't always so
> clear.  I think some editing might help.
> 
> Hhere are some suggestions:
> 1) Change the title to something like:
> RSVP-TE Identification of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSPs
> 
> 2) Simplify the Abstract, perhaps just focus on the purpose of the
> extension vs the details of the extension.
> 
> 3) Ensure the Intro covers the key points clearly.  I see the minimal
> set of key points as:
>   - TP identifiers are defined in RFC6370
>   - Identifiers are need by both end points of a bidirectional LSP
>     for OAM
>   - RFC6370 defines mapping of TP identifiers to RSVP-TE for
>     associated bidirectional LSPs (but other aspects aren't which
>     are covered by [associated-lsp]), but not co-routed LSPs.
>   - The high level approach taken by the draft to address the
>     missing function.
> 
> 4) The Operation section seems to be covering procedures, so why not
> just combine with section 4.2, or add an informational description of
> the extension as part of section 4 (before section 4.1).
> 
> 5) The Procedures section needs to explicitly define what an
> implementation needs to do to (a) support the desired function and (b)
> conform with the document.  Think about covering what the
> ingress/transit/egress needs to do and how it needs to do it.
> 
> Lou
> 
> PS please feel free to respond on-list (including the above) if you'd 
like.
> 
> On 8/28/2012 12:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> We have received comments offline/online and addressed them into the
>> draft v-03 from the polling version 02, then updated the draft to v-04
>> according to the comments received since IETF84 meeting and pushed the
>> proposal into the mailinglist also to hear more opinions.
>>
>> The authors think we have addressed all the comments and this draft is
>> ready for WG consideration now.
>>
>> Any suggestion?
>>
>> Best regards :)
>>
>> Fei
>>
>>
>> *Lou Berger <[e-mail]>*
>>
>> 2012-08-21 01:38
>>
>> 
>> 收件人
>>                  [e-mail]
>> 抄送
>>                  [e-mail]
>> 主题
>>                  Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action:
>> draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fei,
>>                 To respond to your procedure point:
>>
>> On 8/17/2012 3:27 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> I am not sure whether this draft should follow the the procedures
>>> defined for WG documents or not.
>>
>> Individual drafts are completely under the control of the authors.  Of
>> course, they may choose to listen to feedback of WG participants in 
hope
>> of getting their draft accepted as a WG draft....
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>
>