Re: [mpls] Poll on draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm

Yoshinori Koike <koike.yoshinori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Thu, 09 February 2012 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <koike.yoshinori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F4A21F84CF for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:13:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZ7t9+03wXmD for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:13:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBD921F84CE for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:13:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.149]) by tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q195Cxou015188; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:12:59 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE916B9E; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:12:59 +0900 (JST)
Received: from imail3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imail3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.248]) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E166843; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:12:59 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [129.60.11.43] (koike-pc.nslab.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.11.43]) by imail3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q195Cwl9031222; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:12:58 +0900
Message-ID: <4F335682.8030904@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:15:46 +0900
From: Yoshinori Koike <koike.yoshinori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
References: <OFB2366300.8B13C3C0-ON4825799F.0008D0B7-4825799F.000C2B27@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OFB2366300.8B13C3C0-ON4825799F.0008D0B7-4825799F.000C2B27@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:13:02 -0000

Hello Fei,

Thank you for your comment.

This description is based on MPLS=TP OAM requirements specified in 
section 2.2.11 and 2.2.12 of RFC5860. We will add the following 
information in the sentence for clarification when updating the draft, 
if this works for you.

"... because these functions are supported only between end points of a 
transport path according to RFC5860."

Best regards,

Yoshinori

(2012/02/09 11:12), zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote:
> Hi
>
> One comment:
>
> I do not think the descriptions in section 5 are accurate:
> "Packet loss and packet delay measurements are OAM functions in which
> hitless and temporal segment monitoring are strongly required because
> these functions are supported only between end points of a transport
> path."
>
> For according to the descriptive scopes at the section 2.9.5 of RFC6374,
> the packet loss and delay measurement functions are not strictly limited
> only between endpoints:
> "In the case of an LSP, it may be desirable to measure the loss or delay
> to or from an intermediate node as well as between LSP endpoints.  This
> can be done in principle by setting the Time to Live (TTL) field in the
> outer LSE appropriately when targeting a measurement message to an
> intermediate node".
>
> Since this is a requirement document and if the inaccuracy does not affect
> this document, please count "yes/support" from me to support this
> adoption.
>
> Regards
>
> Fei
>
>
>
> Loa Andersson<loa@pi.nu>
> 发件人:  mpls-bounces@ietf.org
> 2012-02-08 21:26
>
> 收件人
> "mpls@ietf.org"<mpls@ietf.org>, MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> <ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int>,
> "draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm@tools.ietf.org"
> <draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm@tools.ietf.org>, Ross Callon
> <rcallon@juniper.net>, George Swallow<swallow@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel
> <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> 抄送
>
> 主题
> [mpls] Poll on draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Working Group,
>
> this is to start a two week poll to see if there is support to make
>
>      draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-04
>
> mpls working group drafts.
>
> Pleased send your comments to the mpls working group mailing list
> (mpls@ietf.org).
>
> This poll ends February 22, 2012!
>
> Loa
> for the mpls wg chairs
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


-- 
Yoshinori Koike
koike.yoshinori@lab.ntt.co.jp