Re: [L2tpext] [Fwd: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-05.txt]

Scott Wainner <swainner@cisco.com> Thu, 26 May 2005 17:06 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13583 for <l2tpext-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2005 13:06:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DbM7F-00066x-77 for l2tpext-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 26 May 2005 13:25:53 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DbLmN-0000C4-6a; Thu, 26 May 2005 13:04:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DbLmK-0000AM-LK for l2tpext@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 26 May 2005 13:04:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13393 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2005 13:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DbM4x-00062v-Mz for l2tpext@ietf.org; Thu, 26 May 2005 13:23:32 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2005 13:04:08 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4QH444u002884; Thu, 26 May 2005 13:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 26 May 2005 13:03:57 -0400
Received: from cisco.com ([64.100.233.109]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 26 May 2005 13:03:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4296017C.3@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:03:56 -0400
From: Scott Wainner <swainner@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [L2tpext] [Fwd: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-05.txt]
References: <4295C098.7030100@cisco.com> <4295E284.9080304@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4295E284.9080304@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 May 2005 17:03:56.0527 (UTC) FILETIME=[E70E4FF0:01C56214]
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b6657e60309a1317174c9db2ae5f227
Cc: "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>, l2tpext@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/l2tpext>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1302016718=="
Sender: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1924de3f9fb68e58c31920136007eb1

Comments in line

Carlos Pignataro wrote:

>Mark L.,
>
>Please find my comments inline.
>
>Circa 5/26/2005 8:27 AM, W. Mark Townsley said the following:
>  
>
>>Forwarding to l2tpext for comments there. Thanks for the review, Mark.
>>
>>- Mark
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-05.txt
>>Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 00:50:05 +0100
>>From: Mark Lewis <mark@mjlnet.com>
>>Reply-To: mark@mjlnet.com
>>To: mark@townsley.net
>>CC: iesg@ietf.org
>>
>>Hi Mark,
>>
>>Here's a review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr. Apologies if
>>some of my comments are off-the-mark as I unfortunately had
>>to review it in haste.
>>
>>It seems like another very good draft to me. Just one or two
>>relatively minor comments:
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>2.
>>
>>In section 3, might it be worth stating that, ‘LCCEs MAY
>>[must?] participate in FR Local Management Interface [LMI].
>>An LCCE MAY transmit an SLI message indicating a change in
>>the status of the local PVC as the result of the reception of
>>an LMI message. Similarly, an LCCE receiving an SLI
>>indicating a change in status of a FR PVC (on a remote LCCE)
>>MAY send a corresponding LMI message to its connected CE
>>device indicating this status change.’
>>    
>>
>
>I personally think that the ACTIVE/INACTIVE states and associated PVC
>transitions cover the more generic case, and should be generally used.
>However, a small mention reference of FR_LMI <-> FR_PW high level
>interaction could help; OTOH, trying to add too many details could end
>up causing more confusing when coupled with DCE/DTE or NNI LMIs. So
>maybe a single paragraph in Section 3. would work. I also unsure if
>LCCEs participating in LMI is a MUST or more likely a MAY.
>
I think this should be a MAY.  The PE and CE may disable LMI on the 
port.  Of
course, the granularity of PVC state is restricted to the state of the 
entire port to which the AC's
are attached.

Scott Wainner

>
>Thanks !!
>
>--Carlos.
>
>  
>
>>Anyway, hope that helps,
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>L2tpext mailing list
>>L2tpext@ietf.org
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
L2tpext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext