Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates-01

<kenji.fujihira.dj@hitachi.com> Fri, 04 October 2013 05:31 UTC

Message-Type: Multiple Part
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <XNM1$6$0$0$$9$1$2$A$2009305U524e5213@hitachi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: eosborne@cisco.com
From: kenji.fujihira.dj@hitachi.com
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:28:51 +0900
Priority: normal
Importance: normal
X400-Content-Identifier: X524E521300000M
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/C=JP/ADMD=GMGROUP/PRMD=GMGROUP/;mta71310041428511XL]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates-01
Precedence: list

Hi, Eric.

Thanks. See inline.

>Hi Kenji-
>
>  Sorry for the very late reply.  I'd missed all the 'draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates@tools.ietf.org' emails.  See inline.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kenji.fujihira.dj@hitachi.com
>> [mailto:kenji.fujihira.dj@hitachi.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 6:59 AM
>> To: draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates@tools.ietf.org; mpls-
>> chairs@tools.ietf.org
>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
>> Subject: MPLS-RT review on draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates-01
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I've reviewed draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates-01 as the MPLS-RT process.
>> 
>> a. Is the document coherent?
>> It's almost coherent. I need just one clarification about section 4.
>>    "When L(SF-W) is removed but R(SF-W)
>>    remains, what does PSC do?  A strict reading of the FSM would suggest
>>    that PSC transition from PA:F:L into N, and at some future time
>>    (perhaps after the remote request refreshes) PSC would transition
>>    from N to PA:F:R."
>> PA:F:L/R is Protecting administrative state due to local or Remote FS
>> operator command,
>> so it doesn't match in this context. In my understanding, the strict
>> reading of the FSM
>> leads the following transition.
>>    PF:W:L -> DNR -> PF:W:R (for non-revertive operation)
>>    PF:W:L -> WTR (for revertive operation)
>> 
>
>Yeah, I have a typo in there.  I suspect I mashed up SF and FS when writing the example.  I do this far more than I'd like to admit.
>
>Your understanding about the FSM behavior in the face of SF-W is correct.  My text was going for the easiest example, and it seems much easier to explain it with FS so I don't have to cover both NR/R cases.  It's just an example, after all.


Yes, I understand.
If it's a multiple input example of Local FS and Remote FS, the sentence in the draft "A strict reading of the FSM would suggest..." is correct.


>
>I'll rewrite section 4 example 1 with FS rather than SF-W; this leaves the reading of the FSM correct.  I will resubmit this as -03 and then ask Loa to proceed with WG adoption.
>


OK. I agree with you. FS is a better example than SF-W to make it simple.

B.R.
Kenji.



>Thanks!
>
>
>
>eric
>
>> b. Is it useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational
>> networks)?
>> I believe it's useful.
>> 
>> c. Is the document technically sound?
>> Yes, the described mechanism and objective are clear to me.
>> 
>> d. Is the document ready to be considered for WG adoption?
>> I hope the comment above is closed before WG adoption.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Kenji.
>

[mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-osborne-mpls-psc-u… kenji.fujihira.dj
Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-osborne-mpls-p… Eric Osborne (eosborne)
Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-osborne-mpls-p… kenji.fujihira.dj