Re: [CCAMP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-03

Hi Julien,

Thanks for the comments!

1) Yes, we may need some text to describe how to process in the case of silently ignored BEHAVIOR_CONFIG object in the Config message.
2) You raised a good question. Actually in the previous version of this draft we had discussed if we need some separate bits to indicate the optional behaviors defined in 4204, but finally we think we don't need it. Because the optional behaviors negotiation procedure has been defined in 4204 already. In 4204, support for these two procedures is indicated by setting the "Link Verification Supportted" flag and "Fault Management Supportted" flag in the TE_LINK object of the LinkSummary message.

Thank you!

Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julien Meuric" <julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: "Dan Li" <huawei.danli@huawei.com>
Cc: <ccamp@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-03

> Hi Dan.
> 
> Thanks for the update. Just 2 comments for me.
> 
> In section 3, the case of silently ignored BEHAVIOUR_CONFIG object (and 
> the malformed message suggested by Lou) is not explicitly mentioned in 
> the following text. If it is deferred to RFC 4204, a simple sentence 
> would be helpful.
> 
> About, the B bit, I believe the "core procedures" from RFC 4204 
> ("control channel management" and "link property correlation") should 
> not allow negotiation, so removing the B bit is fine. All the same, RFC 
> 4204 is not a single feature: would not it make sense to consider the 
> "additional procedures", i.e. "link connectivity verification" and 
> "fault management", in BEHAVIOUR_CONFIG? (e.g. V and F bits)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
> Le 07/04/2011 11:08, Dan Li a écrit :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We have updated this draft according to the comments raised during IETF 80th meeting, just very minor changes:
>> 1) Replaced "Reserved" with "MUST_BE_ZERO" to avoid any confusion;
>> 2) Added the text to describe the current status of the RFCs updates for LMP security issue.
>>
>> Thanks Richard and Sasha for the valuable comments!
>>
>> BTW, as we have raised the question in the meeting, do we need the "B" bit? If there is no objection, then we will remove "B" bit from this draft in next revision.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Authors of LMP-Behavior draft
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "IETF I-D Submission Tool"<idsubmission@ietf.org>
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Dan Li and posted to the IETF repository.
>>>
>>> Filename: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation
>>> Revision: 03
>>> Title: Behavior Negotiation in The Link Management Protocol
>>> Creation_date: 2011-04-07
>>> WG ID: ccamp
>>> Number_of_pages: 9
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>> The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is used to coordinate the
>>> properties, use, and faults of data links in Generalized
>>> Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Various proposals
>>> have been advanced to provide extensions to the base LMP
>>> specification. This document defines an extension to negotiate
>>> capabilities and support for those extensions, and provides a
>>> generic procedure for LMP implementations that do not recognize or
>>> do not support any one of these extensions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF Secretariat.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>