Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Thu, 11 February 2016 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30701B3007 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:08:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ibQfcC2snvcl for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:08:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F2B41B3B3C for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:08:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=31543; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455228514; x=1456438114; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=uIhrKuehupFKX8wNpaMjW6ZTP3rS+V4jDPGuUU9eeSU=; b=eh+h9ny/FD2aYKdqiDLmXZFhSvP7OWsF5mLvNEwNQ5++Xwo134xzKiyz xy+o+7ejPhe/7U5EesLwCRsEDiNSpGG73X/WurEMO2kPIvH/mDSrXkDor N1DDlP6qLR/eLe2dafhipOVZ/dqacdeEICXF+ETWIRzDYm7oDfAf6Aq5s U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,433,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="236710298"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Feb 2016 22:08:33 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1BM8Xpf005633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:08:33 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:08:32 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:08:32 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Gregory Mirsky <>, Loa Andersson <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
Thread-Index: AQHRWi+i4aCoaj+USzqP2deJ9ymVRJ8U2EGwgAC/YoCAEaJzEIAAQwIA
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:08:32 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D2E26FF54CF66aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:08:45 -0000

Hi Greg,
Updates satisfy my comments.

From: Gregory Mirsky <<>>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 1:20 PM
To: Acee Lindem <<>>, Loa Andersson <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: RE: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

Hi Acee,

I've realized that I yet have not addressed your comment on Section 8 IANA Consideration. Would appreciate your review of update I've prepared (diff and newer version being attached). Updates are in:

·         section 4.2;

·         section 8.4 is now for OSPFv2;

·         new section 8.5 being added for OSPFv3.

We have discussed whether RTM Capability advertisement should be advertised in TE IGP advertisements or use generic IGP. Though this document addresses TE MPLS, I believe that Segment Routing is the use case to support choice of generic IGP advertisements as proposed in the draft.

Greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions.



-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) []
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 4:51 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Loa Andersson
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

Hi Greg,

That sounds like a good plan.



On 1/30/16, 8:36 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <<>> wrote:

>Hi Acee,

>thank you for your thorough review and OSPF insights.

>I've updated reference to RFC 7684 in the new -01 version.

>When we were starting work on RTM we intended to address LDP signaled

>IP/MPLS networks as well and that, as I recall, was the reason to use

>more generic IGP TLVs rather than TE-specific. Since LDP drifted out of

>scope, I agree, use of TE advertisements is more suitable. We'll work

>on that and share new update with you and the IGP WGs.


>             Regards,

>                             Greg


>-----Original Message-----

>From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem


>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:55 PM

>To: Loa Andersson


>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft


>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.




>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: Loa Andersson []

>>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM

>>To: Gregory Mirsky;<>;<>


>>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.


>>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


>>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as

>>>the next step.

>>>                 Regards,

>>>                                 Greg


>>>mpls mailing list






>mpls mailing list