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 340DB130EDC; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 02:51:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 3_lPH1Mryn2K; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 02:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (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 92B4B130EDB; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 02:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.192.10.2] (helo=[10.149.2.6]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1h40Xj-0002uM-7d; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:51:23 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.1 \(3445.101.1\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:51:22 +0100 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind_via_Datatracker?= , The IESG , "mpls@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" , "loa@pi.nu" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <155240641959.16274.10292530156982066442.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Mach Chen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1552470687;27192278; X-HE-SMSGID: 1h40Xj-0002uM-7d Archived-At: Subject: Re: [mpls] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-?= =?utf-8?q?ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-06=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?= X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:51:30 -0000 Hi Mach, Please see below > On 13. Mar 2019, at 10:15, Mach Chen wrote: >=20 > Hi Mirja, >=20 > Thanks for your comments! >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mirja K=C3=BChlewind via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 12:00 AM >> To: The IESG >> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org; = mpls-chairs@ietf.org; >> loa@pi.nu; mpls@ietf.org >> Subject: Mirja K=C3=BChlewind's No Objection on = draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag- >> multipath-06: (with COMMENT) >>=20 >> Mirja K=C3=BChlewind has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-06: No Objection >>=20 >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all = email >> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this = introductory >> paragraph, however.) >>=20 >>=20 >> Please refer to = https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>=20 >>=20 >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath/ >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >> I wanted to comment on the same sentence/normative requirement as >> Alvaro did in his point (2). Given Alvaro's additional information = that there is >> actually even a technical conflict with this requirement, I think = this should be >> address before publication and might even be discuss-worthy. However, = I'm >> really not an expert on MPLS and therefore leave the decision to = state a >> discuss ballot position to potentially other, more knowledgable ADs. >>=20 >> Thanks for addressing the TSV-ART review comments (and thanks J=C3=B6rg= for >> the review)! I support adding another sentence with a pointer to = rate-limit >> requirements in other docs. Thanks for proposing this change. Looking >> forward this see this in the doc! >=20 > Are you suggesting to add a reference, do you have any specific docs = suggestion? In your reply to Joerg=E2=80=99s tsv-art review (on Dec 14 already), you = proposed to add the following statement: "For an LSP path, it may be over several LAGs. For each LAG, there will = be many member links. To exercise all the links, many Echo Request/Reply = messages will be sent in a short period. It's possible that those = messages may traverse a common path as a burst. Under some circumstances = this might cause congestion at the common path. To avoid potential = congestion, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations to randomly delay the = Echo Request and Reply messages at the Initiating LSRs and Responder = LSRs.=E2=80=9D You also said: "RFC8029 (Security Consideration) does recommend the implementation to = regulate the ping traffic to the control plane, it applies to this = document as well.=20 At the same time, RFC 6425 (P2MP LSP Ping, section 2.2) introduces some = ways to limit the message rate. The way of random delay messages would = apply to this document as well.=E2=80=9D So adding pointer to these two documents/sections would be good as well = maybe. Thanks! Mirja >=20 > Best regards, > Mach=20 >>=20 >=20