Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app-aware-tldp
Santosh Esale <sesale@juniper.net> Wed, 07 January 2015 00:59 UTC
Return-Path: <sesale@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F471A00F0 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:59:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MANGLED_OFF=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 loaRFc3sqdmk for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0103.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.103]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38D5E1A0072 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY2PR05MB192.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.149) by BY2PR05MB189.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 00:59:46 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB192.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.38]) by BY2PR05MB192.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.38]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 00:59:46 +0000
From: Santosh Esale <sesale@juniper.net>
To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app-aware-tldp
Thread-Index: AQHQKVLhLdk1xXgDvkqFOfkFmFRZfQ==
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 00:59:45 +0000
Message-ID: <D0D072FC.78659%sesale@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.11]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=sesale@juniper.net;
x-dmarcaction: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005003);SRVR:BY2PR05MB189;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR05MB189;
x-forefront-prvs: 044968D9E1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(252514010)(51704005)(164054003)(377424004)(377454003)(479174004)(189002)(199003)(40100003)(99286002)(101416001)(107046002)(99396003)(19580405001)(120916001)(105586002)(4396001)(19580395003)(2501002)(106116001)(87936001)(122556002)(97736003)(2656002)(106356001)(64706001)(20776003)(230783001)(31966008)(66066001)(86362001)(92566001)(83506001)(54356999)(36756003)(46102003)(102836002)(15975445007)(77156002)(62966003)(68736005)(2900100001)(50986999)(21056001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB189; H:BY2PR05MB192.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <CA966EC9B2FB944AA71BFF3CDBD61847@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Jan 2015 00:59:45.5286 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR05MB189
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7-PpQHKh_0Wgo_uZNJIbOAF6cHI
Cc: "draft-esale-mpls-app-aware-tldp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-esale-mpls-app-aware-tldp@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app-aware-tldp
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 00:59:50 -0000
Hi Tarek, Thank you for the review and comments. Please find some responses inline. On 12/8/14, 10:14 PM, "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com> wrote: >Hi, > >below is my MPLS-RT review: > >- is the document coherent? >Yes, in general, but can benefit from another editorial round. > >- is it useful? >Yes, being able to control T-LDP session establishment on-demand using new >targeted application capability TLV is useful. > >- is it technically sound? >Yes, but can benefit from being more explicit on how it complements and >possibly co-exists with work defined in >draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability. Section 5 describes interworking of this draft with draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability. We have added more explicit text to this section in version 03, which will be published shortly. >For example, when conflicting >TAC/SAC are used and how it can be interpreted? Section 5, paragraph 4 and 5 describe the procedural preferences for the co-existence of TAC/SAC and for the avoidance of conflicting SAC/TAC on the tLDP session. Added ‘must’ keyword for these procedures. >Another (idea) is can do >without extra mappings for Targeted Application Element to State >Advertisement Control (SAC) Elements as defined in >draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability (can it be unified app-id instead?)? The application type defined in draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability maps to LDP FEC type while the TA-Id defined here is tLDP application Id, which is necessary to control tLDP session establishment per application and to advertise only necessary LDP FEC-Label bindings for that application. > >- is it ready for WG adoption? >Yes, but recommend undergoing another round of cleanup/editing before. > > >=== >Comments: > >Section 2: >* Value of U/F-bits: suggest being explicit on the recommended values‹ >e.g. The value of the U-bit for the TLV MUST be set to 1 so that a >receiver MUST silently ignore this TLV if unknown to it, and continue >processing the rest of the message. The value of F-bit MUST be set to 0, >so to not forward. We will make it explicit in the new revision -03. > >* (Targeted Application Identifier (TA-Id)): would recommend making E-bit >be at position 0 to be consistent with other definitions. Thanks for the suggestion, We will change it. >Section 3: >* it MUST teard down -> it MUST tear down >* withdral -> withdrawal Done. >* repeated TA-Ids/TAEs on receive may be considered malformed (?) to be >consitent with procedures in draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability? We thought over it and arrived at a conclusion to ignore duplicates rather then to consider them as malformed to avoid tLDP session flap. >* can elaborate on the new requirement below.. What are implications of >not accepting by default? > "Also, currently the remote LSR accepts asymmetric extended Hellos >by > default or by appropriate configuration. With this document, it > should accept by default in order to then accept or reject the tLDP > session based on the application information.² If the receiving LSR does not accept asymmetric tLDP hellos, asymmetric tLDP sessions cannot be established to that LSR. So automatic applications such as Remote LFA, BGP auto-discovered pseudowire, mLDP node protection etc may not work. > >Section 4: >* s/an LSR MAY using/an LSR MAY use > >Section 5: >* "The E-bit of the Targeted Application Element MUST be set to 1 to >enable Targeted application.². How to handle when E-bit is 0 on RX, is it >malformed, or ignored? It is ignored. Added in the new version. >* can be more elaborative on handling TAC update in LDP capability >message.. Okie. >* s/disbaled/disabled >* s/udpates/updates Done. >* "The LSR MAY add a different KeepAlive Time², why? not clear how >related? Removed. >Section 6: >* s/initialazation/initialization >* s/procceds/proceeds >* s/establishemt/establishment Done. Thanks, Santosh > > >On 2014-11-24, 2:40 AM, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote: > >>Tarek, Thomas and Lizhong, >> >>You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-esale-mpls-app- >>aware-tldp. >> >>Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know >>that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own >>document. >> >>Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it >>useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational >>networks), and is the document technically sound? We are interested >>in knowing whether the document is ready to be considered for WG >>adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be perfect at this point, but should be >>a good start). >> >>Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and >>WG secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments >>may be sent privately to only the WG chairs. >> >>If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what >>*really* need to be resolved before adopting it as a working group >>document, and what can wait until the document is a working group >>document and the working group has the revision control. >> >>Are you able to review this draft by Dec 9, 2014? Please respond in a >>timely fashion. >> >> >>Thanks, Loa >>(as MPLS WG chair) >>-- >> >> >>Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >>Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >>Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >_______________________________________________ >mpls mailing list >mpls@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app… Thomas.Beckhaus
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app… Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- [mpls] FW: MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app… Lizhong Jin
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app… Santosh Esale
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app… Santosh Esale
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-app… Tarek Saad (tsaad)