Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg, 
That sounds reasonable, if it is used for Segment Routing paths, it does
belong in the primary protocol LSAs rather than being relegated to the TE
LSAs. 
Thanks,
Acee 

On 2/1/16, 8:26 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>you've likely noticed very interesting discussion of RTM applicability in
>Segment Routing environment. We'll be studying this use case and start a
>new draft. But the SPRING use case of RTM, in my view, justifies already
>proposed in the document IGP TLV extensions.
>What do you think about RTM in SPRING case? Would you agree to the
>proposed IGP extensions?
>
>	Regards,
>		Greg
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 4:51 AM
>To: Gregory Mirsky; Loa Andersson
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
>
>Hi Greg,
>That sounds like a good plan.
>Thanks,
>Acee
>
>On 1/30/16, 8:36 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <[e-mail]> 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 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>(acee)
>>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:55 PM
>>To: Loa Andersson
>>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>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.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Acee
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
>>>To: Gregory Mirsky; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>Cc: [e-mail]
>>>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.
>>>/Loa
>>>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
>>>>addressed.
>>>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as
>>>>the next step.
>>>>                 Regards,
>>>>                                 Greg
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>mpls mailing list
>>>>[e-mail]
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mpls mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>