Re: [CCAMP] Some comments on mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Mon, 17 October 2011 08:55 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
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 8568321F8472; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nSrpoWK9YqOZ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE3621F854F; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 466211461793122; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:47:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 51666.2460250643; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:55:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p9H8tICW013726; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:55:18 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <4E43E197.5000804@labn.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OFBE9AED88.3393C007-ON4825792C.002BCADB-4825792C.00310217@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:55:19 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-10-17 16:55:21, Serialize complete at 2011-10-17 16:55:21
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 003102144825792C_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p9H8tICW013726
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Some comments on mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:55:42 -0000
Dear Lou, all According to the comments received, we have uploaded the new version, below is the link: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02. And the responses in details are marked as <Fei> in the initial mail for quick check . O(∩_∩)O Any more comments are welcome Best regards Fei Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org 2011-08-11 22:05 收件人 draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.org 抄送 CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org> 主题 [CCAMP] Some comments on mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp Authors, Good progress on the draft so far. In looking at the previous mail, I noticed a few things in the draft that I think could improve the clarity of the draft. Note that a bunch of these comments are style in nature, not technical. Also comments are made as a WG contributor, not chair. Some general comments: - There is no/little conformance language related to the Single Sided Provisioning. This is a huge hole in the draft. <Fei>Section 5, the first paragraph - As mentioned in my previous mail, backwards compatibility needs to be address <Fei> Section 5.4 - How are you thinking about providing the ERO (and perhaps RRO?) for the reverse LSP when using Single Sided Provisioning? (Keep in mind we already have EROs/RROs and SEROs/SRROs, it would be good to figure out if these can be leveraged.) <Fei> Section 5.1 - How does 4872/3 style recovery work for the reverse LSP? <Fei> the usage of RFC4872/3 is unchanged, section 3.2.4 - You introduce the new, and somewhat confusing, term: "Two Reverse Unidirectional LSPs". TP already has a term for this, i.e., "Associated Bidirectional LSPs". I think the document should just use this established term. <Fei> Accepted For the following I'm using line numbers found via http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01.txt Line 1: The document is in ccamp not mpls. <Fei>Accepted Line 8: "Establish Associated Bidirectional LSP". Presumably, this also will cover more than just establishment, so perhaps replace "to Establish" with "For" and "LSP" with "LSPs". <Fei>Accepted Lines 132/134: The section is titled association .. of LSPs, but the first topic is provision models and it certainly covers more than association. Perhaps the title should be something more general, even "Associated Bidirectional LSPs", or "Overview". <Fei>Accepted Section 3. As this section is a narrative, the very few instances of RFC2119 language seems out of place, i.e., belongs in section 4 and 5 and should be moved or removed. <Fei>Accepted Section 3.2.2. I think this is really overly complex and likely to lead to the same issues and confusion we've seen in e2e recovery. Is there any reason not to keep it simple and say something along the lines of "the values used in the ASSOCIATION object are outside the scope of this document. For example they may be communicated via the management plane. No matter how the values are communicate, identification of the LSPs as being Associated Bidirectional LSPs occurs based on the identical contents in the LSPs' ASSOCIATION objects" <Fei>Accepted, see section 3.2.2 Section 3.3: doesn't cover recovery of LSP2. <Fei>Unchanged, see section 3.2.2 Line 437: Suggest renaming to "Association of LSPs". <Fei>Accepted Section 4: I think this is where any discussion of Association object modifications, procedures, and conformance language should be consolidated. <Fei>Accepted, see section 4 Lines 443-529: In general, one document should not repeat the format from another for informational purposes, so most of these lines should be dropped. All you need is a statement to the affect that the Extended ASSOCIATION object is defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] MUST be used. <Fei>Accepted, see section 4 Line 496: Should use the standard term "Associated Bidirectional LSPs". <Fei>Accepted Lines 498-500: This sentence relates to nodes that do *not* implement this draft, as such is way outside the scope of the document and must be removed. <Fei>Accepted Lines 507-509, 523-529: In general I think it is a mistake to proscribe use of LSP or tunnel IDs as association IDs. Using the assoc-ext rules, it isn't an interoperability concern, and such usage leads to the confusion/issues covered in the assoc-info draft. I think the 4872 definition is sufficient for Association ID and assoc-ext is sufficient for Extended Association ID. <Fei>Accepted, see section 4 Section 5: Suggest renaming "Single Sided Provisioning" and including all the related modifications, procedures, and conformance language in this section. Topics to be covered include, in no particular order: - LSP Control (Establishment, teardown, modification including MBB. Don't forget about the attributes and admin status objects -- maybe there's a generic approach that can be followed, e.g., a REVERSE_LSP object that carries objects for use by the reverse LSP <Fei>See section 5.2 - Symmetric and Asymmetric BW (If not covered under a generic approach) Explicit control of the reverse LSP (If not covered under a generic approach) <Fei>See section 3.2.3 - Record route of the reverse LSP (If not covered under a generic approach) <Fei> Not addressed now, I do not catch the idea clearly - Recovery (If not covered under a generic approach) <Fei>See section 3.2.4 - Compatibility <Fei>See section 5.4 - Updated RSVP Message Formats (as needed) <Fei>See section 5.3 Lou _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp