Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Mon, 29 November 2021 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
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 0302E3A0AB1; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:04:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wclnrHGp7N5S; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 147CA3A0AAD; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4J2VTZ3MwBz6HB6w; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:00:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) by fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 04:04:34 +0100
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.20; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:04:33 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.020; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:04:33 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
Thread-Index: AQHX2sg+SA4iWeLk9Eyo7Z3VsMuvHqwVdNiA
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 03:04:33 +0000
Message-ID: <99a517d726074ad39ca992e2a2b1a4c8@huawei.com>
References: <7e54a58d-b70e-ae74-e0db-192af25fb06f@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <7e54a58d-b70e-ae74-e0db-192af25fb06f@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.40.66]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/5SOL5I6AmpIIq_7yqMMzTAv-8OU>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 03:04:43 -0000

Hi Loa, 

I have read the latest version of this draft and think it provides a useful mechanism, thus I support the adoption. 

Here are some comments which may be solved either before or after the adoption. 

1. In several places of this document, it uses "Return Path TLV" to refer to the "Reply Path TLV" defined in RFC 7110. It is suggested to use the consistent term "Reply Path TLV" throughout this document.
	
2. Although this document is targeted at Ping & Trace in inter-domain SR-MPLS network scenarios, this mechanism can also be applied to the intra-domain cases where the reply SR path needs to be specified. It would be useful if some text about this could be added to the document.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 4:59 PM
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam@ietf.org;
> mpls-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] working group adoption poll on
> draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> This is to start a two week poll on adopting
> 
> draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
> 
> as a MPLS working group document.
> 
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org) Please give a technical motivation for your
> support/not support, especially if you think that the document should not be
> adopted as a working group document.
> 
> There is one IPR disclosure against this document. The data tracker says that
> there are 2 disclosure, but that depends on that the IPR holder updated the
> disclosure when the filename of the was changed.
> 
> All the authors and contributors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that
> they are unaware of any other IPRs that relates to this document.
> 
> The working group adoption poll ends November 30, 2021.
> 
> /Loa
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls