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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 10 October 2012 11:00 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 9A50321F8514 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 ZGL4cqLXixzU for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F1DA121F8508 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 7238 invoked by uid 0); 10 Oct 2012 11:00:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2012 11:00:50 -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=tVkKvuW8U6M+nyfFUjYmL+70EwPt7+u1XRbseP7ftxY=; b=AZjOCBEBtc5bkhFOVMw/Sl9pUyAKmxBzcZ6rcTJxbuZFSY1NpAwIgh+sPEA6YyGhFj71Kkj7U6Fj2MjxB8bxcdJkHWXtMDoFeyGV1Qn5bwim77rLP8W8F4zMWQL2pVJl;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:39981 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TLu1y-00010c-06; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:00:50 -0600
Message-ID: <5075555F.7000803@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:00:47 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
References: <OFA48A9A0D.5DBFA052-ON48257A93.00253CEF-48257A93.00263DDA@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OFA48A9A0D.5DBFA052-ON48257A93.00253CEF-48257A93.00263DDA@zte.com.cn>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
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>, venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.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, 10 Oct 2012 11:00:53 -0000

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, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn 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 <lberger@labn.net>*
> 
> 2012-10-09 02:11
> 
> 	
> 收件人
> 	zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn, "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>om>,
> venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com, xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn,
> bao.xiao1@zte.com.cn, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>
> 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, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn 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 <lberger@labn.net>*
>>
>> 2012-08-21 01:38
>>
>>                  
>> 收件人
>>                  zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
>> 抄送
>>                  ccamp@ietf.org
>> 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, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn 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
>>
>>
>