IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] comments/questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 27 October 2014 19:24 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 4D41E1AD082 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:24:27 -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 7AnLSrmFWY24 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.38.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 36EFA1AD04B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31094 invoked by uid 0); 27 Oct 2014 18:49:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 27 Oct 2014 18:49:03 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id 8Jov1p00H2SSUrH01JoyGa; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:49:02 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=e5mVF8Z/ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=u9EReRu7m0cA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=gfioU3JDUWEIqbFtypAA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA: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=dcIRE7wUZRMlVXjTuMV9Qd0nnWy/7gP4UfjcFqT6YRE=; b=XLIIr7LeLGKz0sZsOvJaZLd02PXooxmzwlHCuEQ0kGzDRDe9HN6ZBTOvjcp615bgNg5puZoGaxEfpR/qdoKrskTmG0x8xtXrtdeS68JzsJ+BgZREvtn/x8dZUWqXm/OJ;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:35442 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1XipLb-0004E5-Vq; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:48:56 -0600
Message-ID: <544E93A0.4060201@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:49:04 -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: Cyril Margaria <cyril.margaria@gmail.com>
References: <542F01CD.9020709@labn.net> <CADOd8-uVS4VyDyAgY8_Wu0oFGd_cteKXt++og8hcQVYaGXCXKg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADOd8-uVS4VyDyAgY8_Wu0oFGd_cteKXt++og8hcQVYaGXCXKg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/o77XhWXSouDRTagcy7sLIq_qyMw
Cc: "<draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro@tools.ietf.org>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] comments/questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro
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: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:24:27 -0000

Cyril, Authors,
    Thank you for the update.  See below for one response. 

Do you have any outstanding actions/plans on the draft or do you believe
it is
ready for LC?

Thanks,
Lou
On 10/24/2014 12:37 PM, Cyril Margaria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for the comments, we believe we did address all of them in
> the new version we posted:
> URL:           
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-05.txt
> Status:        
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro/
> Htmlized:      
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-05
>
> please find answers to individual comments inline.
>
> Best Regards,
> Cyril
>
>
> On 3 October 2014 16:06, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net
> <mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:
> ...
>
>     - Section 4. Isn't recording applicable to required  attributes as
>     well?
>     I.e.,why no R bit recording in section 4.1?
>
>  
> RFC5420 does not make that distinction in the RRO attribute subobject,
> In addition the R bit is known to the node that inserted that ERO
> subobject  and the requiered presence of the attribute depends on the
> given attribute.
> or those reasons we did include the R bit in the RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE. If
> there is a use case for it, we will include it.
I guess this could be argued either way.  From a technical perspective,
I think the information is useful and you're already carrying the bit. 
Then again, from the process standpoint, if no one else thinks this is
needed, I don't want my comment to trigger the change.

...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email