Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

"Adrian Farrel" <> Tue, 07 April 2015 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34701B3C9C for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V81leHoWH8EG for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3C201A9107 for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t37KvX7d030903; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 21:57:33 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t37KvUL2030877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 21:57:32 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'Ross Callon' <>,
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:57:34 +0100
Message-ID: <032b01d07175$7a6535f0$6f2fa1d0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_032C_01D0717D.DC2C0EF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQH1MtJuR9PoFq/Ikt5tBrpfIzTGugHj/uh8nOleDpA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.397-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--16.397-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: yebcs53SkkBT7QvMcPWmSOGonqgs5zxBh8Ytn75ClDO638ZUY6gSd3md +25VkQszM6AYDRVyusurrlYLeXheSBmN40CNJF1HVoDlQpf4TdUpWss5kPUFdMPeHaeZngFBH9d YEuRTt+6T9AFIos/69i8qyDve6XUAjAJ35L3MgLZNCH0Dib0S0SwJzaIVMjGtB1j59po+6EQVjA eaOyL90setslknmQ/gjVjvwC8i3K9ANJabxsmbMkcVayrW/N3UGbJMFqqIm9xF+YXPIqAdvi1lx AVVUrr2Xxl++CV5LZdjXzx1pPoeS7jj3IxuLhij4t2mucDkRBELy8o3bV9yTfDtk4ziLyBO0UFH zpW9t1kdn874qANH/v2005/gaC3xiVm/X1CarJC8coKUcaOOvdZKsq3DGpalzO86RLKahv/KmLA /VYsJLwrjHjSPKL+XSaVfaxxV94/trubt8TkL4cG0UNgaZpYqtF9GMNu1bqLkOOZ1bT6psa7BVP FMOQQusrZgdv+SJ0/88SAvS2rKrnRue7aQeqLEsyw+ZJnFumQTskidPjB12hON+Q7elv5YPSawi BLK6fcf9nvUckM1oVpzKEH0vVqvEnerDpp3+WMAGGKG8CG8Akh41hM/w6ZM+TdKNkxxkWRSUGH6 RuK0zz8NRz8HpCmSZEZKdSp4I705BGX7329oyQwfhKwa9GwDWq9ln3+CkiFnnK6mXN72mznuQWM 5MjklgExzV+J9XRhiXQjTxUn166dwsJe6fN2LQesjq8XPMbuQF91MxEBdRrXvDHySC+eUlSBIvH 74wfJrar1QOTCmjzl5+IQAcYVk8lEDYmoBkrOeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBvevqq8s2MNhPB9j2Gwz TE3vXkguuQorcgMiSr5ISSsIxwf+oJMy8WR2OsGa3FDOhjdXRVoKyP+YKV+3BndfXUhXQ==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf
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: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 20:57:53 -0000

Hi Ross,
Apologies for a late review from me, as well (my excuses is that as AD
I didn't participate in WG last calls, and since Dallas I've been sick).
I have no objection to this document and it addresses a specific
requirement to provide a mechanism to enable MPLS OAM features that is
independent from the control plane, but that nevertheless does not
require the MCN either.
I wonder whether the various bit flag arrays (such as Figure 1/Table 1,
Figure 2, Figure 7) should be managed by IANA? In any case, it would be
helpful to use some more consistent language to say that unassigned bits
MUST be transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt - currently this is
deduced from the figures through a variety of language.
My final thought is to ask why this document doesn't share data 
structures with draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext. Of course, it
doesn't need to, but it is probably turning on and off exactly the same
OAM function, so it might save some text to use the same structures.
From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Ross Callon
Sent: 06 April 2015 01:10
Cc: Ross Callon;;
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for
This working group last call has now ended. 
There was one public response (to the MPLS working group) in support. I also got
private responses of support from two of the authors. Otherwise there were no
responses (neither in favor nor opposed). This is not sufficient to constitute
"rough consensus". As such the working group last call has failed.
My inclination is to wait for the July IETF (in Prague), and give the authors an
opportunity to present and solicit additional support. Depending upon the
response there, we may then repeat the WGLC. 
Thanks, Ross
(as WG co-chair)
From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Ross Callon
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:46 PM
Subject: [mpls] working group last call for
Working Group,
This is to initiate a working group last call on
Because this WGLC will span the IETF in Dallas, it will be extended to just over
three weeks. 
Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (
There are no IPR disclosures against this document. All the authors have stated
that they 
are not aware of any IPR that relates to this draft (two of the responses were
private to 
the WG chairs).
This working group last call ends Thursday  April 2, 2015.  
for the MPLS WG chairs