Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

Loa,

IMHO, this is a useful draft and shouldn’t be abandoned. However, I’m not
expert enough with timing protocols to have an informed opinion of its
readiness for WG LC, I’ll defer that to the authors or implementors. I
would also like to see Acee’s comments addressed.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
> >Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
> >To: Gregory Mirsky; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
> >Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org
> >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.
> >/Loa
> >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
> >>addressed.
> >>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as the
> >>next step.
> >>                 Regards,
> >>                                 Greg
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>mpls mailing list
> >>mpls@ietf.org
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>