Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping

Gregory Mirsky <> Wed, 24 February 2016 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52AE11B4012; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:44:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z__0Y-jDQN_d; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AFD91B400B; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:44:34 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f799c6d000007d66-a2-56ce1616edd4
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E5.FD.32102.6161EC65; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:44:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:44:32 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: Loa Andersson <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping
Thread-Index: AQHRbVUVWn7gkDTmZUqULOHb/ruIf587qMOg
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:44:31 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219E1EECeusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlK642Lkwgw3XRCw+T+9ltvg3dw6z xbrLp9gsbi1dyerA4rFkyU8mj1nT29gCmKK4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mp6+WctSsCWyomPBBvYG xns+XYycHBICJhJHt/SxQNhiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4wihxfuVVKGc5o8T8Tc2sIFVsAkYSLzb2 sIMkRARmA1Wd3scEkmAWMJSYOHE/M4gtLBAo0ft9MdhYEYEgiavL5kPZRhKbz9xmA7FZBFQl Wl6vBhvKK+ArcfpYM1CcA2ibisTzafogYU6gkpuNe8DGMwJd9/3UGqhV4hK3nsxngrhaQGLJ nvPMELaoxMvH/1ghbCWJSUvPsYKMZBbIl7h/jRtik6DEyZlPWCYwis5CMmkWQtUsJFUQJToS C3Z/YoOwtSWWLXzNDGOfOfCYCVl8ASP7KkaO0uKCnNx0I8NNjMA4OybB5riDcW+v5yFGAQ5G JR7eDX/PhgmxJpYVV+YeYpTgYFYS4V3PcS5MiDclsbIqtSg/vqg0J7X4EKM0B4uSOO9c5/Vh QgLpiSWp2ampBalFMFkmDk6pBkbTs5rJt9K/ymyUOrp0ZYOMc9Dz9evmXPictc+33dj13xLZ x3qLV/9v2+HKv9Yvw/zsTFcpmQAbe+kZ22IPKi+btMPdep4Dy5X13eLnrzdxKyQe9NC7pHvT 7r7cd9/Tv9pizaf+7+0tzGUKePvVS19bNMMyPeDxcyP9f6pXdG0+Gmr8PMLNVKHEUpyRaKjF XFScCAAb5rNyrwIAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:44:44 -0000

Dear Authors, WG chairs, et. al,

I believe that the document thoroughly addresses set of very important and real issues in MPLS OAM and does that thoroughly. I support its publication. I have one comment:

section 1.3 references Downstream Mapping TLV defined in RFC 4379 as source of information available to discover ECMP paths. But also mentioned in the section RFC 6424 deprecated Downstream Mapping TLV in favor of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV. I think that reference to DSMAP TLV is unnecessary in the document or should be clarified by mentioning that the TLV is deprecated. Then references to DSMAP TLV throughout the document, I've found 11 of these, should be removed.



-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:40 AM
Subject: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping

Working Group,

This is to initiate a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping.

Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (<>).

There are three IPR disclosures against this document.

The document shepherd and working group chairs are frequently asked about the working group discussions related to any IPR disclosures.

We like to remind the working group that discussion on the content and validity of an IPR disclosure should not take place on the MPLS wg list or any IETF mailing lists.

However we are looking for simple statements whether you think the working group should continue progress the document, regardless of an existing IPR disclosure. Please include this information in your "support/do not support" when responding to working group adoption calls and last calls.

All the authors and contributors (with one exception) have stated on the working group mailing list that they are not aware of any other IPRs that relates to this draft.

Note: One of the authors - Nobo - has not responded to the IPR poll, we know that in his new role Nobo is an infrequent reader of IETF mails.

We have decided to go ahead with the wglc, while we continue to ping him on the IPR poll. We have a pretty good idea off Nobo's response, but should ther be any "surprises" this will be brought to the attention of the working group.

This working group last call ends March 08, 2016, however the wglc will not be closed until we have all the responses on the IPR poll.


for the MPLS wg chairs


Loa Andersson                        email:<>

Senior MPLS Expert                <>

Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64


mpls mailing list<>