Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] poll to adopt draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv as a working group document

[Lavanya Srivatsa <[e-mail]>]

Yes / Support.

However, I have some comments/queries that I would request be updated in the next version (if the authors 
agree with my comments, of course!).

(1)  In Section 2.2, it states "When sending LSP-Ping packets using ACH, without IP encapsulation,
   there MAY be a need to identify the source address of the packet.
   This source address will be specified via the Source Address TLV,
   being defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv]"  
[LS] The ACH TLV draft has Source Address only in 
the IP format and not in the non-IP format as per mpls-tp-identifiers draft.

(2) Section 2.3 states - "Only one identifier (MEP or MIP) MUST be present in a packet."
[LS] Would there not be a scenario that a Source MEP and a Destination MIP might need 
to be carried in the packet for connectivity verification to intermediate/transit nodes?
I agree that source MEP/source MIP and destination MEP/destination MIP are invalid combinations
but Source MEP/Destination MIP seems a "possible" combination?

(3) Section 3.3 states that the Egress Node may add the Target FEC Stack TLV in its echo responses.
[LS] How will the egress node know when to do so? Is it expected/mandated that the echo request 
should have an newly defined bit set in the Global Flags field to indicate that the response should 
contain a Target FEC stack? If so, then I think that this draft needs to explain this modification on 
the base rfc 4379.
On the same lines, would it also be recommended that the echo response contains the V bit
set in the Global Flags to indicate that the ingress must validate the reverse FEC?

- Lavanya


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:37 PM
Subject: [mpls] poll to adopt draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv as a working group document
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, MPLS-TP ad hoc team <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>



Working Group,

this email is to start poll to adopt
draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00.txt
as an MPLS working group draft.

After recent experience, the chairs would like to remind you all
what it means to conduct a poll to adopt a draft as a working group
draft.

- Please recall that the IETF does not "vote." Polls of a working
 group are to gather information to help the chairs make their
 decisions. Voting is not part of the normal working methods of
 an IETF working group.

- The "rough consensus" process used in the working group assumes
 that people expressing opinions are also participating in the
 development of standards documents.

- Subscription to the list specifically to express an opinion is
 noticed by the chairs who has access to information on the new list
 members. Such behavior is not part of the normal working methods.

- The purpose of a poll for adoption is to help the chairs understand
 the level of support for a document (i.e. who has read it, who
 believes it is a good starting point for working group work, who
 will contribute to the work) and whether there are any significant
 technical issues. Statements of objection must be backed up by
 proper technical reasons.

So please respond to this poll indicating whether you support the adoption of this draft or stating your technical issues.

Please also not that this draft has after a discussion with the
working group chairs been renamed, it was earlier know as
draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions-01.

This poll ends eob July 5.


Loa and George
mpls wg co-chairs

--


Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
                                            [phone]
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls