Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E342E129476; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 zgDDZMkXbzSr; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50862129481; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id r137so28582958pfr.3; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:11:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=0avt/n5sspto2XYaby1H4GcE75YXqgkllTUc0ybyrjY=; b=jgD2ekB448RzRZihge672QsbiHV5D1HLvUZR52kCxNLkdGuEvVx9Jo8w2o4Yvsq4vo 3DzRK78qYgaYlPZwAXx08l3a561cHnk2hyWwa9NcpybSRHfIcYGEIz7Z0On3HXhJoapt hj0UZyvieKa8qk/okaHTFRnUe03EkPnvxYKoN91ef3LCkLhJFkFFHumLQ2vKfMDElLlK UU4t63xLHtmFZpF+58sGMKh1lqFNN3ebhqelVxuDz7/qPABid+pb19RFqmiVoJX2WaCz BMKZbhPyJ604XtlV7rb6ka61r4AZUjA94eWNRn3YAceNqBasA4pP9AxsElyD/MqoKiGa x+Ew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=0avt/n5sspto2XYaby1H4GcE75YXqgkllTUc0ybyrjY=; b=nOtfXP6ddUZTC16K9Q9lge5XZeDA/SnfhGPD74gWxgIT7DV+rnJHf2Hrz96NtmYTba owfhp1dJyULWvbaHoYVbyw4a/wNRgaBUSjqyEWLpU0TydO5o4nokTyEaS0+vFzK5EQlB WffelRJm2R9SiCsb6FAFLlWAoJOkZYgXTe3NedJ6mDSTsNdu0i1oM5E6W4eAyXxOq1an Ec3oSfVh4pZRZGuPtiClJc+hD4yt1CypI1LNYv9sk6t8MkZTiJJRpoDjIYtQS+g4K5rS 9nQAI+nLdR4UUSwTTLmMx5dYNvE5iPtRVKXtzGHbOPAXDR1IXshts1Ts8f0Yef/M6w7S 0abw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2RgJAE8DZD6365WXW3pdgQzJ7uukDS7Ql+h8PPm7DP3TqGYVDsXQ8DI2GXHGMrdA== X-Received: by 10.99.175.66 with SMTP id s2mr3590275pgo.30.1490281884836; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LLIOK4RX6E0B076 ([103.251.128.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n15sm10984707pfj.18.2017.03.23.08.11.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 23:14:05 +0800 From: "lizho.jin" To: Loa Andersson , draft-bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl Cc: huubatwork , "Andrew G. Malis" , Vishwas Manral , mpls-chairs , mpls Message-ID: <20653DE4-B6BE-4915-AB22-0574891CD225@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3492a077-bc52-dd35-aed7-17fc6c749a8b@pi.nu> References: <3492a077-bc52-dd35-aed7-17fc6c749a8b@pi.nu> X-Mailer: PC MailMaster/3.3.1.1013 (Windows 7) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Archived-At: Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:11:27 -0000
Hi,
I review this draft, and also the t= wo related S=46L draft. Overall, this document is useful and technically = sound. And I have some non-blocking comments listed below. Regarding the = adoption, I suggest to consider adopting draft-bryant-mpls-sf= l-framework-03 first, then this draft which is highly relied on the conce= pt of S=46L.

Section 3
  &nb= sp;The data service packets of the flow being instrumented are grouped
   into batches, and all the packets within a batch are= marked with the
   S=46L =5BI-D.ietf-mpls-flow-ident= =5D
=5BLizhong=5D more suitable to refer =5Bdraft-bryant-mpls-s= fl-framework=5D, not =5BI-D.ietf-mpls-flow-ident=5D

<= /div>
Section 4
   Such a pack= et may not need to be carried over an S=46L since the delay
&nb= sp;  over a particular LSP should be a function of the TC bits.
=5BLizhong=5D not understand here, adding S=46L does not change the= LSE and TC, why not possible to carry over S=46L=3F
 
Section 7
7.  Multiple Packet Delay Characteri= stics
=5BLizhong=5D is it= assumed here that all packets belong to one flow will go through the sam= e path=3F Some network equipment may not be the case. E.g., case in R=46C= 7424.

Section 7.1
   There will be a n= umber of Interval/Number pairs depending on the
   nu= mber of buckets being specified by the Querier.  If an R=46C6374
   message is being used to configure the buckets, the R= esponder MUST
   respond with 0 packets in each bucke= t until it has been configured
   for a full measurem= ent period (i.e. it was configured at the time of
   = the last response message).  Out of band configuration is permitted<= /div>
   by this mode of operation.
=5BLizhong=5D= need detail process of Query and Reponse. E.g., does the query need =22Number pkts in Bucket=22 field,= and if not, please specify.

7= .3.1.  R=46C6374 Multi-Packet Delay Measurement Message =46ormat
=5BLizhong=5D this is only for Classic Standard Deviation, right=3F= why it is not section 7.2.1=3F

7.4
<= div>
   This R=46C6374 message is carried over an LSP in th= e way described in
   =5BR=46C6374=5D and over an LSP= with an S=46L as described in Section 9
=5BLizhong=5D what's the format of query message, will it= include =22Time of =46irst Packet=22, =22Time of =46irst Packet=22, and = other fields=3F

13.1.  Al= location of PW Associated Channel Type
   As per the IANA considerations in =5BR=46C5586= =5D, IANA is requested to
   allocate the foll= owing Channel Type in the =22PW Associated Channel
   = ;Type=22 registry:

   Value  Desc= ription                   &n= bsp;TLV =46ollows  Reference
   -----  ----= -------------------------  -----------  ---------
&nb= sp;  TBD    Description MPLS Multi-Packet  No   =         This
        &n= bsp; Delay Measurement
=5BLizhong=5D there is other two message= type need to be defined here. E.g., Bucket Jitter Measurement Message =46ormat, Average Delay Measurement Message =46ormat


Regards
Lizhong

On 03/= 9/2017 11:09=EF=BC=8CLoa Ander= sson<loa=40pi.nu> wrote=EF=BC=9A
Huub, Andy, Vishwas and Lizhong,

You have been selected as MPLS-RT revie= wers for 
draft-bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-03.

Note to authors: You have been CC'd&nbs= p;on this email so that you can know
that this review is going on. However,&= nbsp;please do not review your own
document.

Reviews should comment on whether the d= ocument is coherent, is it
useful (ie, is it likely to be act= ually useful in operational networks), 
nd is the document technically sound=3F

We are interested in knowing whether th= e document is ready to be
considered for WG adoption (ie, it does= n't have to be perfect at this
point, but should be a good start).&nbs= p;Please remember that it often is
easier to progress the document when it=  has become a working group
document. All comments in the MPLS-RT r= eview needs to be addressed,
but please think carefully about whether&nbs= p;a comment is gating the
adoption or could just as easily be&nbs= p;addressed after the adoption.

Reviews should be sent to the document&= nbsp;authors, WG co-chairs and WG
secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG = ;email list. If necessary, comments
may be sent privately to only the = WG chairs.

If you have technical comments you shou= ld try to be explicit about what
needs to be resolved before adopting it=  as a working group document, and
what can wait until the document is&nbs= p;a working group document and the
working group has the revision control.

Are you able to review this draft = by March 23, 2017=3F Please respond
whether you are available to do the&nbs= p;review in a timely fashion.


Thanks, Loa
(as MPLS WG co-chair)
-- 


Loa Andersson        &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;   email: loa=40mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert       = ;            =        loa=40pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)    &nb= sp;phone: +46 739 81 21 64
<=21--=F0=9F=98=80-->