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

[Nitin Bahadur <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lavanya,

On 7/5/10 5:52 AM, "Lavanya Srivatsa" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

New address types for src-addr tlv is not in the purview of this 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?

I'm not sure. I am willing to change this if others on the wg mailing list
think so as well.

> (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.

This section needs some work. Next revision :-)

> 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?

Yes, I will add some text to indicate that V flag can be set in the reverse
direction as well.
 
> - 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp