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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 22 October 2014 19:29 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 BA28C1AD38D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 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, 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 S71MNbEK2ibb for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DE18E1AD39E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20095 invoked by uid 0); 22 Oct 2014 19:29:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2014 19:29:06 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id 6KUx1p0092SSUrH01KV0ZM; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:29:05 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Tr912lnh c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=u9EReRu7m0cA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=v3Rn6Fmf3h3NMjylDYwA:9 a=mRt1ujnTtGtK7RPr:21 a=7Z8vz4l_fCuIgZ_r:21 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA: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=rLM0qiOD6ChunvYeGGDC0DXe/RKAd6JPOXs00Wjyddg=; b=Ap4UX7sk+EVD0Mp7RZpi5XlsishD/H7EzYN6NS6008hXTlij1rnN/6w/VBS+g3aKTT8O2I3Ekn5KCvj1N/SWS+IkRTzDJOkauXbB2dvgkZqErgnSVsqUdVlfyNiUPtZT;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:47414 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Xh1ac-0003C3-5B; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:28:58 -0600
Message-ID: <544805C0.8060103@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:30:08 -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
References: <20141020074350.21488.53873.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C92733758033@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C92733758033@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/cXiE0C94gTHDaBOv0YxivPRg2xM
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: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:29:10 -0000

Jie, Authors,
    I have a few comments:

- Section 3.1,
I think intermediate node behavior related to processing of the A is
unchanged by this document so think you should drop the 3 lines that
contain the phrase "... intermediate nodes ..."

- Section 3.2
The section is not clear if the A bit processing occurs / completes
before Loopback related processing begins or occurs coincidentally.  (I
read the last sentence of the first paragraph saying the former and the
last sentence of the 2nd paragraph saying the latter.)  Either way it
should be clarified.

Where is the Loopback (B) bit / Attribute Flag defined? This document,
right? Then the document, needs to state so in this section and in the
IANA section.

Section 4, needs to be updated to follow RFC2360, See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-10
for a recent example.

- Also please cleanup your id-nits, see
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt

Lou

On 10/20/2014 3:58 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> Dear all, 
>
> The only change in this new version is: 
>
> - Update the references (one has become RFC)
>
> Your review and comments are highly appreciated.
>
> Many thanks,
> Jie
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:44 PM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
>> Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt
>>
>>
>> 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           : GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and
>> Loopback
>>         Authors         : Jie Dong
>>                           Mach(Guoyi) Chen
>>                           Zhenqiang Li
>>                           Daniele Ceccarelli
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt
>> 	Pages           : 8
>> 	Date            : 2014-10-20
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
>>    Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and
>>    Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  These
>>    mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized
>>    Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> 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
>