Re: [mpls-tp] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become an mplswg document
"Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Mon, 30 March 2009 13:19 UTC
Return-Path: <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61843A6BE7 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.821, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_6CONS_WORD=0.356]
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 T4JCGhVzCHBb for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E5F3A6A4B for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2UDT8AW010770; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:29:10 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:20:13 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B13A.41AF218E"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:20:11 -0500
Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF04E43854@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls-tp] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become an mplswg document
Thread-Index: AcmIbjUUxqd49eFjRgaSIN7LlRwZRwEjFqXgAAaJP7AABtjL0AgbNE6wAOau3BA=
References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF049DBE51@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <A37753B7B7A3134F9366EE6B4052F43B02790566@ILEXC2U03.ndc.lucent.com>
From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
To: Rolf Winter <IMCEAMAILTO-Rolf+2EWinter+40nw+2Eneclab+2Eeu@ericsson.com>, mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 13:20:13.0000 (UTC) FILETIME=[41FBA480:01C9B13A]
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become an mplswg document
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:19:53 -0000
Rolf, Earlier you had the following comments (our response embedded): Section 2: > > Quote: For the management interface to the management system, an MPLS- > TP NE is not expected to actively support more than one > management protocol in any given deployment. The protocol to be > supported is at the discretion of the operator. > > In terms of requirements shouldn't that rather be "...an MPLS-TP NE MAY > actively support more than one management protocol..." This proposed change could be interpretted to mean very nearly the opposite of what was intended. But the current wording could use improvement. We spent some time figuring out what we feel is an appropriate compromise and we propose to change the applicable text to read: "For the management interface to the management system, an MPLS-TP NE MAY actively support more than one management protocol in any given deployment. For example, an MPLS-TP NE may use one protocol for configuration and another for monitoring. The protocols to be supported are at the discretion of the operator." Section 4: > > The list seems incomplete to me but the text does not make this clear. > Therefore I would suggest to make the following change: > > In order to have the MCN operate properly, a number of > management functions for the MCN are required > <add>including</add>: We propose to add "including" as you suggest. Section 5.3.2: > > Quote: An MPLS-TP NE MUST provide alarm suppression functionality that > prevents the generation of a superfluous alarms. > > Remove the "a" Done. Section 5.3.4: > > Quote: The MPLS-TP ME SHOULD > report local (environmental) alarms > > I assume you mean NE above and not ME as e.g. defined in > draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework-00 Uh, yeah. Changed to "NE"... Section 10 not needed I assume. Section 10 is IANA considerations, and is a required section. We propose at this time to add text indicating that there is no IANA action required by this document. > Hope these are of any help. > > Best, > > Rolf Yes, your comments were helpful and we deeply appreciate your effort and willingness to provide them. Thanks!! -- Eric