Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt

Jie,
    Thank you for the quick response.  See below for responses.

It probably would also be worthwhile to add some words on when this
extension should be used versus draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext/>. 

On 10/22/2014 11:43 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> Hi Lou, 
>
> Thanks a lot for your review and comments, please see my replies inline:
>
>> Jie, Authors,
>>     I have a few comments:
>>
>> - Section 3.1,
>> I think intermediate node behavior related to processing of the A is unchanged
>> by this document so think you should drop the 3 lines that contain the phrase "...
>> intermediate nodes ..."
> Agree the behavior of intermediate node is unchanged, will remove the descriptions about intermediate node behavior in a new revision. 
>
>> - Section 3.2
>> The section is not clear if the A bit processing occurs / completes before
>> Loopback related processing begins or occurs coincidentally.  (I read the last
>> sentence of the first paragraph saying the former and the last sentence of the
>> 2nd paragraph saying the latter.)  Either way it should be clarified.
> The A bit (lock) processing needs to be completed before initiating loopback request. The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph was to emphasize that when signaling loopback, the A bit should be kept set to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode.
> We will rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.
Great.  Please include appropriate conformance language.

>> Where is the Loopback (B) bit / Attribute Flag defined? This document, right?
>> Then the document, needs to state so in this section and in the IANA section.
> The Loopback bit was defined in the end of section 2 "Extensions to RSVP-TE". To make it clearer, will use subsections for each extension in the new revision.

This is a good change to section 2. You might want to rename that
section encodings or formats as the whole document is about rsvp-te
extensions. You can take a look at section 4 of
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp as a recent example. 

This said, you still need to mention where it is defined (e.g., in
section 3.1, add "defined above" the first time you mention the bit) and
add it to the IANA section.

>> Section 4, needs to be updated to follow RFC2360, See
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-1
>> 0
>> for a recent example.
> Thanks for pointing to this example. Will update the IANA section accordingly.
>
>> - Also please cleanup your id-nits, see
>> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-t
>> e-li-lb-04.txt
> Will clean this in the new revision.

Thanks,
Lou

> Best regards,
> Jie
>
>> Lou
>>
>> On 10/20/2014 3:58 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The only change in this new version is:
>>>
>>> - Update the references (one has become RFC)
>>>
>>> Your review and comments are highly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Jie
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:44 PM
>>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>>> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>>>  This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement
>>>> Plane Working Group of the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>         Title           : GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct
>> and
>>>> Loopback
>>>>         Authors         : Jie Dong
>>>>                           Mach(Guoyi) Chen
>>>>                           Zhenqiang Li
>>>>                           Daniele Ceccarelli
>>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt
>>>> 	Pages           : 8
>>>> 	Date            : 2014-10-20
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>    This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
>>>>    Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and
>>>>    Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  These
>>>>    mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized
>>>>    Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb/
>>>>
>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04
>>>>
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>