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

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou, 

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We will submit a new revision to reflect them. Please see my replies inline:

> 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/>.

In some earlier version there used to be some words talking about draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext and this draft, we will add some words back in the new revision. 

Basically draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext defines extensions for configuring pro-active MPLS-TP OAMs, while draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb is about LI & LB provisioning, which belong to on-demand OAM functions.

> >> - 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.

Will fix this in the new revision.

> >> 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.
>

Will fix this in the new revision.

Many thanks, 
Jie

> >> Section 4, needs to be updated to follow RFC2360, See
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associ
> >> ated-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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:44 PM
> >>>> To: [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]
> >>>> 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
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CCAMP mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >>>
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp