Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc

Hi Eric O and all,

As to the first bullet to the question below, my opinion is YES.
The reason is it is align with #84 (84A) in RFC 5654.

Just my 2c,
Yuji

(2013/04/17 21:21), Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote:
> This thread is for discussing draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc.  We started with -00, but there is now a -01.  
>
> The draft proposes adding the EXER/RR commands found in some ITU linear protection protocols to PSC.  
> I have also posted an alternative approach, draft-osborne-mpls-psc-alive-00.
> Briefly, EXER is a mechanism designed to check the responsiveness of the far-end state machine.  My proposal, ALIVE, is for a similar mechanism.  It works differently and thus may be more or less acceptable.
>
> The big questions here are:
>
> - do we need any sort of EXER-type function at all?
> - if so, are either of the two proposals sufficient?  Is there a better way?
> - if not, is it possible to provide the same kind of testing and awareness through existing mechanisms?  is this testing and awareness desirable or necessary?
>
> but of course any and all discussion is welcome.
>
>
>
>
>
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>