[mpls-tp] Questions regarding draft-ietf-mpls-tp-csf

"Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com> Thu, 03 March 2011 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.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 5622A3A6997 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:21:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 2YrmQdbCmMr4 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:21:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35EE3A6964 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p239N08e020649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:23:02 +0100
Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p239Mw7L032537; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:22:59 +0100
Received: from DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.24]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:22:58 +0100
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_01CBD984.9546524E"
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:22:55 +0100
Message-ID: <E4873516F3FC7547BCFE792C7D94039C0C1542@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Questions regarding draft-ietf-mpls-tp-csf
Thread-Index: AcvZhJPrVvF1lA8uQJmvev0PLOYGaw==
From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2011 09:22:58.0056 (UTC) FILETIME=[95B1D080:01CBD984]
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-csf@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [mpls-tp] Questions regarding draft-ietf-mpls-tp-csf
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: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:21:57 -0000

Hi 

While internally reviewing this draft two questions were raised that I
would like to hear some feedback on:
1.  In the description of the Client Failure Indication function in the
OAM Framework document there is the following text:
   Either there needs to be a 1:1 correspondence between the client
   and the MEG, or when multiple clients are multiplexed over a
   transport path, the CFI packet requires additional information
   to permit the client instance to be identified.
  Can you please explain whether the draft only refers to the case of
1:1 correspondence or what TLV you are proposing to identify the
different client instances that are reporting the failure?

2. Can you explain the relationship between this draft and
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk that deals with propagation of the
error codes on the AC to a PW OAM, based on BFD or VCCV?

Thank you 

Best regards,
Yaacov Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks
Industry Environment, PTE
ph#:  +972-9-775 1827
mob#: +972-54-220 0977