Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Fwd: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority-00.txt

Yaacov Weingarten <wyaacov@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <wyaacov@gmail.com>
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 3DD6121E8094; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.39
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.457, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdWIJaRVDFTY; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9900411E80D3; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f12so4020403wgh.3 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=kpRMZW/ockb7qFuJ8RVM4YEVUksMyBgDVPmGw9EwRJ0=; b=nocRnGJmjDpZyMz4fXSs84AcnVwdQIEDr/Wa/9V0KsIuJS1/oorsjyKM2nqOZPGzhi pq8UEmYpsF1CT8t8+KNBBIwZR8RdSYrVgemNPI22WGnrKA2wEOVJj4CBlq/aRIF9sdvK bokPtWiDL3Hg6j8vp/PKJ3/e4eOKhdYGW6d/vsxzzgbGQls5O2QrH96eB7+iqy2XpPhb qEqcFKseXj0VWC4qzzBuaxez18yIIoOBxfWTawgIVI1tADyk3gdsPhdKUZKGyUX/LdnP uJChGkZGjFMQLdJkLaNj+ehJs7f56Hyf/FhGZvPytY/8blVIMbHxdA8A+ha4z5UXJVxV 9wqg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.19.130 with SMTP id f2mr41881574wje.22.1375092673713; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.164.200 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51F62737.3020505@gmail.com>
References: <51DFBCAE.1090904@gmail.com> <51F62737.3020505@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:11:13 +0300
Message-ID: <CAM0WBXXek+z6N3aK11SJA9ncyVN0y64dpWwm+6HRyCupkB-nhw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yaacov Weingarten <wyaacov@gmail.com>
To: huubatwork@gmail.com, ccamp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b5d4dae599c0e04e2a3b64d"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:44:12 -0700
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Fwd: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority-00.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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:11:16 -0000

Hi,

While I understand (and to a certain extent support) the purpose of this
document, I am not sure that the note that you are proposing in Section 2
of the document really clarifies the definitions of what are the priorities.

Based on the Rosetta Stone document - a "Communication Channel" is any
logical connection between NEs that may be used for management or control
plane applications. In theory this includes (to my understanding) any use
of the GACH as defined for MPLS-TP (e.g. any OAM functionality).

Your note states: "For 1+1 protection schemes (which do not use a
communication channel)" -

   - what are these? Is there a protection scheme for MPLS-TP that do not
   use a communication channel - for example for CC or CV messages? If you
   meant to say that they are not dependent upon a coordination protocol
   (similar to the statement in the ITU documentation that refers to APS) then
   I suggest that you clearly state this.
   - However, are you adding a blanket statement that 1+1 protection
   schemes do not use a coordination protocol? This is news to me, since to
   the best of my recollection both ITU Ethernet Linear Protection and RFC6378
   define support for 1+1 protection, don't they?

Might I suggest that you adhere more closely to the language of the ITU
definition and state that if a coordination protocol is being used then
SF-P priority is higher than FS.

Hope this helps,
yaacov weingarten


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello MPLS,
>
> I noticed that I did not send this notification to the MPLS
> list at the same time as I sent it to CCAMP.
>
> This concerns/addresses priorities in linear protection.
>
> Best regards, Huub.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-**priority-00.txt
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:22:06 +0200
> From: Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: huubatwork@gmail.com
> To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
>
> Hello CCAMP,
>
> Based on the messages on the MPLS list:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/mpls/current/**msg09913.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg09913.html>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/mpls/current/**msg09916.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg09916.html>
>
> I have created and uploaded the draft below.
> Comments are appreciated.
>
> Best regards, Huub.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-**priority-00.txt
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 01:01:39 -0700
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
>         Title           : Update Forced Switch Priority
>         Author(s)       : Huub van Helvoort
>         Filename        : draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-**priority-00.txt
>         Pages           : 4
>         Date            : 2013-07-12
>
> Abstract:
>    This document clarifies the definitions related to Manual Switch and
>    Forced Switch. This document updates RFC 4427.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/**doc/draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-**priority<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority>
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-**priority-00<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority-00>
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-**drafts/<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/i-d-announce<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.**html<http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/**1shadow-sites.txt<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mpls<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>



-- 
Thanx and BR,
yaacov

*Still looking for new opportunity*