Re: [mpls] Solicit comments on draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping

Hi Mach,

I agree that the draft is straightforward, so I only have comments intended to improve the clarity, rather than the technical details.

In the introduction and abstract you state that there is ambiguity in the currently defined sub-TLVs that is resolved by looking at the sub-TLV length.  Really, it isn't the sub-TLV length itself that determines this, but the length of the address fields.  I think what you are getting at would be more clearly stated with something like the following.

"Although the sub-TLVs defined for pseudowires in RFC 4379 are not explicitly restricted to IPv4 LDP sessions, this restriction is clearly inferred by examining the lengths of the Sender/Remote PE Address fields.  These sub-TLVs cannot be used for pseudowires signalled in IPv6 LDP sessions since the addresses will not fit."

Cheers,
Spike

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 2:47 AM
To: mpls@ietf.org
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Solicit comments on draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping

Hi,

We presented the draft in IETF 82th meeting (both in MPLS and PW3 WG) and did not receive technical comments there. Although the authors think that the draft is quite straightforward and stable, we'd like that you could spend some time to read the draft and give your comments. 

Any comments and feedbacks are appreciated!

Here is the pointer: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-02 .

Many thanks,
Mach
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls