Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return

Stewart,

I can give you the more formal part of the answer on how to
proceed.

- if the authors think this is ready for wg adoption, they
   should tell the chairs

- the chairs will the start the following process
   -- a chair review to see if we agree with the authors that
      it is time to start the wg adoption process (usually
      results in a set of comments that need to be address)
   -- IPR poll
   -- MPLS-RT review (more comments to be addressed)
   -- wg adoption poll

/Loa

On 2014-05-20 17:50, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Apropos the above, the proposal in the draft is simple and
> satisfies a need that an operator has requested us to address.
>
> In this case I do not think a complete test protocol is needed or justified,
> and in any case would be a lot more effort to implement compared
> to the proposal on the table.
>
> I would like to understand how best to move forward with this.
>
> - Stewart
>
>
>
> On 10/04/2014 15:06, Eric Gray wrote:
>>
>> I agree with the port reviewers.  A well-known port would have been a
>> target.
>>
>> *From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 09, 2014 10:31 AM
>> *To:* Eric Gray; Gregory Mirsky;
>> draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return@tools.ietf.org
>> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return
>> *Importance:* High
>>
>> On 09/04/2014 13:58, Eric Gray wrote:
>>
>>     Stewart,
>>
>>     Well, you're adding 4 bytes to handle the case where the response
>>     is to be
>>
>>     returned using UDP.  This is in addition to the address
>>     information already included
>>
>>     in the message as defined by RFC 6374.
>>
>> Sure
>>
>> It's certainly arguable that this new information does not need to be
>> carried
>>
>> in the test messages, assuming that there might be a control protocol
>> used instead.
>>
>>
>>
>> The question as to whether or not this is "heavy-weight" depends on how
>>
>> many additional ways one might envision returning the response.
>>
>> Well I am not convinced that you would want to send it over TCP.
>> We already have a way to return it over MPLS - via LSP association
>> or via the use of a first hop label encoded in the address field.
>> That leaves UDP/IP which this draft deals with.
>>
>> Our first thoughts were BTW to request a UDP port, and we submitted
>> a port request, but the port reviewers suggested that we should find a
>> way to do it using dynamic ports, and that is what the draft describes.
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>
>
> --
> For corporate legal information go to:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64