Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt Wed, 10 October 2012 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B87121F85A4 for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.642
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.753, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a3teTYbS9zZy for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D842721F85A3 for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id D3DFC125F174 for <>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:58:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id EB67272755C; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:54:40 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id q9A6vg0K005282; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:57:42 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Lou Berger <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: A48A9A0D:5DBFA052-48257A93:00253CEF; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:57:39 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-10-10 14:57:40, Serialize complete at 2012-10-10 14:57:40
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00263DD748257A93_="
X-MAIL: q9A6vg0K005282
Cc: "" <>,
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:57:55 -0000

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


   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 <> 
2012-10-09 02:11

收件人, "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <>,,,, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <>

Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 

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.


PS please feel free to respond on-list (including the above) if you'd 

On 8/28/2012 12:33 PM, 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 <>*
> 2012-08-21 01:38
> 收件人
> 抄送
> 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, 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