Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Sat, 20 February 2016 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E8C1B36A9 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:44:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.507
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t33bf9LO4UrG for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:44:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7C6D1B2AAF for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:44:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5530; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455929079; x=1457138679; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=VrnwFD7CkL07r3NZerkeE0LxSLHTIxECGzOw/2N1ZrQ=; b=GHHmHAyesase4rwEH4EFqQNNBmk341ls4qFfcx4eu1rYLJCzw6pvrDkI f7XNpPONNzg2yAOVBmTr5ksAPBpEW3Yu5xtFw4QS1DLSRCT64nB05TQqJ B2KYXIwE9Z2aj5Abrl3DwQRry6pFjv4KjOig6l/g+qHscry/+cA19L+wN 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,473,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="75008712"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Feb 2016 00:44:38 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1K0icvQ024066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:44:38 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:44:38 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:44:38 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Gregory Mirsky <>, Loa Andersson <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
Thread-Index: AQHRWi+i4aCoaj+USzqP2deJ9ymVRJ8U2EGwgAC/YoCAAmITYIAcJ8+A
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:44:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:44:41 -0000

Hi Greg, Loa, 

On 2/1/16, 8:26 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>you've likely noticed very interesting discussion of RTM applicability in
>Segment Routing environment. We'll be studying this use case and start a
>new draft. But the SPRING use case of RTM, in my view, justifies already
>proposed in the document IGP TLV extensions.
>What do you think about RTM in SPRING case? Would you agree to the
>proposed IGP extensions?



>	Regards,
>		Greg
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) []
>Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 4:51 AM
>To: Gregory Mirsky; Loa Andersson
>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
>Hi Greg,
>That sounds like a good plan.
>On 1/30/16, 8:36 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <> wrote:
>>Hi Acee,
>>thank you for your thorough review and OSPF insights.
>>I've updated reference to RFC 7684 in the new -01 version.
>>When we were starting work on RTM we intended to address LDP signaled
>>IP/MPLS networks as well and that, as I recall, was the reason to use
>>more generic IGP TLVs rather than TE-specific. Since LDP drifted out of
>>scope, I agree, use of TE advertisements is more suitable. We'll work
>>on that and share new update with you and the IGP WGs.
>>	Regards,
>>		Greg
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:55 PM
>>To: Loa Andersson
>>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
>>I’ve read the subject draft and think it offers a useful function to
>>facilitate more accurate time synchronization in NTP/PTP deployments.
>>One question I have is why the capability is signaled in the generic
>>IGP TLV LSAs and LSPs rather than the TE advertisements when the
>>document is scoped to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] LSPs? One reason I ask is that
>>we are waiting on implementations of the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs draft.
>>Having said that,
>>OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have separate registry for the TLV LSAs and section 8
>>should reflect this. Also, OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes is now RFC 7684.
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Loa Andersson []
>>>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
>>>To: Gregory Mirsky;;
>>>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
>>>Working Group and authors, <chair hat off> As a matter of fact I
>>>believe this document should be progressed.
>>><chair hat on>
>>>This draft has been a working group document since early August, but
>>>there has been no discussion on the document on the wg mailing list.
>>>There are of course two ways if interpreting this.
>>>- there is total agreement on the draft
>>>- there is no intrest in the draft
>>>I have no basis to decide which is the case.
>>>Can we plese have at least a few (non-author) comments on the mailing
>>>list if it is time to start the wglc.
>>>mpls wg co-chair
>>>On 2015-12-15 07:21, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>>>Dear Chairs of the MPLS WG,
>>>>authors of the Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Network draft
>>>>believe that all comments received during the WG adoption call been
>>>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as
>>>>the next step.
>>>>                 Regards,
>>>>                                 Greg
>>>>mpls mailing list
>>mpls mailing list