Re: [L2tpext] [Fwd: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05]
Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Sun, 10 August 2008 15:57 UTC
Return-Path: <l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l2tpext-archive-1@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l2tpext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4EC28C167; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2E23A688C for <l2tpext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vCEawgcav9Wr for <l2tpext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eci-iron1.ecitele.com (eci-iron1.ecitele.com [147.234.242.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514913A6849 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown (HELO ILPTAM01.ecitele.com) ([147.234.244.44]) by eci-iron1.ecitele.com with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2008 19:02:46 +0300
Received: from ilptexch01.ecitele.com ([172.31.244.40]) by ILPTAM01.ecitele.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:53:11 +0300
Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.212]) by ilptexch01.ecitele.com ([172.31.244.40]) with mapi; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:53:10 +0300
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:53:08 +0300
Thread-Topic: [Fwd: [L2tpext] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05]
Thread-Index: Acj2Qw26V7LvE4OfQO29vJGMrxdj5wEnaTPwAAf+NaA=
Message-ID: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C7680267C5B41@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
References: <489719DC.4020903@cisco.com> <424CDC689E5CEF4D9FEADE56A378D9221C9A33E5@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il>
In-Reply-To: <424CDC689E5CEF4D9FEADE56A378D9221C9A33E5@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2008 15:53:11.0205 (UTC) FILETIME=[30C89550:01C8FB01]
Cc: "sharon.galtzur@rebellion.co.uk" <sharon.galtzur@rebellion.co.uk>, Sharon Galtzur <sharon.galtzur@gmail.com>, "l2tpext@ietf.org" <l2tpext@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [L2tpext] [Fwd: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05]
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/l2tpext>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
Yaakov, Lots of thanks for catching the nits. I see your comments as editorial, and I shall accommodate them in the post-LC revision of the draft. Regards, Sasha > -----Original Message----- > From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 3:34 PM > To: l2tpext@ietf.org; Alexander Vainshtein > Cc: Carlos Pignataro; Stewart Bryant > Subject: RE: [Fwd: [L2tpext] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05] > > > In general, this ID looks ready for publication. > > I spotted a few minor nits (some of which are just for readability): > > > Encapsulation of the xxx TDM PWs over L2TPv3 is described in > SHOULD BE > Encapsulation of xxx TDM for L2TPv3 is described in > [It is not the PW which is encapsulated ...] > > > Tearing down of session for a TDM pseudowire is identical to > [RFC3931]. > SHOULD BE > Tearing down of session for a TDM pseudowire is performed > as described in [RFC3931]. > [This is simple a special case, not something different that > happens to be identical] > > > Its usage for all types of TDM PWs implies the following semantics: > SHOULD BE > Its usage for all types of TDM PWs employs the following semantics: > > > Note: For structure-agnostic T1 emulation the values 24 > and 25 do not > SHOULD BE > Note: For structure-agnostic T1 emulation, the values 24 > and 25 do not > > > The Payload Bytes field contains the value that represents > the number of the TDM Payload bytes > SHOULD BE > The Payload Bytes field contains a value representing the > number of TDM Payload bytes > > > 4) Set to '00' for all TDM PWs (both CESoPSN and SAToP) that do > not use signaling packets. > SHOULD BE > 4) Set to '00' for SAToP PWs and for CESoPSN PWs not using > separate signaling packets. > > > PT is the payload type expected in the RTP header. Value of zero > indicates that the payload type will not be checked to detect > malformed packets. > SHOULD BE > PT is the payload type expected in the RTP header. A value of zero > instructs the receiver not to check payloads for malformed packets. > [I am sure that this wording can be improved, but it is > clearer than the original.] > > Timestamp Clock Frequency is the clock frequency used for the time > stamping in 8 KHz. > SHOULD BE > Timestamp Clock Frequency is the clock frequency used for the time > stamping in units of 8 KHz. > > > SSRC indicates the expected value of SSRC ID in the RTP header. A > zero in this field means that SSRC ID will not be used for > detecting > misconnections. Since L2TP provides an alternative > security mechanism > using cookies, if the cookie length is larger than zero the SSRC > SHOULD be zero. > QUESTION: Does that mean you use different SSRC values when > two different PWs have their source TDM traceable to the same clock? > > The first paragraph in section 3 needs some English language work > (missing articles, "if it exist" -> "if one exists", etc.) > > > 4. If one side cannot send RTP header requested > SHOULD BE > 4. If one side cannot send an RTP header as requested > > > If CESoPSN basic NxDS0 PW is extended to support CE application > signaling in a separate PW instance, then the two PW instances: > DO YOU MEAN > If CE signaling is transported in a separate PW instance, > then the two PW instances: > [I assume that you don't mean that you are waiting for the > IETF to extend CESoPSN] > > > teh -> the > > > Any values that are Reserved or unassigned in this > specification are > assignable by Expert Review [RFC5226]. > NOT CLEAR - required values will be assigned now by the > expert in charge. > expert review is for allocation of new registry values. > > > [PWE3-TDM-CTR] > SHOULD BE > [RFC 5287] > > > Y(J)S > > > _______________________________________________ L2tpext mailing list L2tpext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
- [L2tpext] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05 Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [L2tpext] [Fwd: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2tp… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [L2tpext] [Fwd: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2tp… Yaakov Stein
- Re: [L2tpext] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2tpext-td… Carlos Pignataro