Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Mon, 07 September 2015 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB771B4187; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ucclMHgX6Pz5; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42D631B413F; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CAX55985; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 08:50:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.73) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:50:37 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.111]) by SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 16:50:32 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Dan Frost <frost@mm.st>, Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQ4vylWco4JfVrDEe6uQjPgY8co54nBUgAgAnDoYA=
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:50:32 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B5B5A6A@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <1440002992.3391528.360465129.4D684834@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAFqGwGupg+Ts0OUr9+Y+4vg1MmqG_OYZZquf-D98Cq_b6EgiKQ@mail.gmail.com> <1441106634.3630360.371549081.1A8F1AF0@webmail.messagingengine.com>
In-Reply-To: <1441106634.3630360.371549081.1A8F1AF0@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.135]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B5B5A6ASZXEMA510MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/EO4QFAettk4OGUXps2rAJFJE5s0>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 08:50:54 -0000

Hi Dan, 

Thanks for your comments!

Regarding to the preference issue, after the discussion among the authors, we think that the Reply Path TLV was originally designed to identify a single path even if it may include multiple sub-TLVs. Similar to FEC Stack TLV, multiple sub-TLVs are mainly used to express a VPN path where it may have tunnel FEC and VPN prefix FEC but both FECs used for expressing the single VPN "path".  So when multiple ordered return paths are required, multiple Reply Path TLVs (each for a single path) should be used. We have updated the draft accordingly, hope this resolve your comment, attachment shows the diff between the old version and the update.

Best regards,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Frost
> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 7:24 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya
> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; mpls;
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org;
> rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] RtgDir review:
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt
> 
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015, at 09:19, Nobo Akiya wrote:
> > [...]
> > Again, thanks for reviewing the document Dan. Please let me know what
> > you would like for the Sub-TLV preference within the Reply Path TLV ...
> > which is really an issue with RFC 7110.
> 
> Many thanks for your updates, Nobo!  Regarding the preference issue, yes, I
> think this is a good place to clarify it, as this document already updates 7110.
> 
> -d
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls