Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

Gregory Mirsky <> Sun, 31 January 2016 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9CE1B3D78 for <>; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:36:47 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CQCfQZg7K_o2 for <>; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:36:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C32B1B3D77 for <>; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:36:45 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f799c6d000007d66-ff-56ad6519bac2
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 85.7B.32102.9156DA65; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 02:36:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:36:44 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Loa Andersson <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
Thread-Index: AQHRWi+i4aCoaj+USzqP2deJ9ymVRJ8U2EGw
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 01:36:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHW1cydW2Ywc514haT385jtrj3+Taj xb+5c5gtbi1dyerA4jHl90ZWjyVLfjJ5zJrexubx5fJntgCWKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6M55/+ MxfMkK84N/MHewPjBrkuRk4OCQETibddU5ghbDGJC/fWs3UxcnEICRxhlLjYt58ZwlnOKPFp xi4WkCo2ASOJFxt72EFsEQEXiemXNrCCFDELdDBKNN06xQqSEBZwkFjbtxCogQOoyFHix5lU iHojiUM3l4H1sgioStydcAJsJq+Ar8SUfzPByoUEtCV2rBUFCXMK6EismfaLEcRmBDru+6k1 TCA2s4C4xK0n85kgjhaQWLLnPNQDohIvH/9jhbCVJD7+ns8OMpJZQFNi/S59iFZFiSndD9kh tgpKnJz5hGUCo9gsJFNnIXTMQtIxC0nHAkaWVYwcpcUFObnpRoabGIGRdEyCzXEH495ez0OM AhyMSjy8BQ5rw4RYE8uKK3MPMUpwMCuJ8C4NBwrxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLn3cK/ KExIID2xJDU7NbUgtQgmy8TBKdXAKG4VPcnpX4GZ2udJ5Uo53JxLT26okGVday+7OXGL1Mof vQfVHsWvMjn91qTqvngD54roD5ve1Jof9yrx62tT0Fpql8yWaq+yY+X/vTwBt3KT3r7gWNM3 e/3jlQUb2k76XZ2x7LKNqOCvk/v8nsr/OBJrJpgUWV265+nEX2dNXho+ncO3fZP5UyWW4oxE Qy3mouJEAGDqUdigAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
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: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 01:36:47 -0000

Hi Acee,
thank you for your thorough review and OSPF insights.
I've updated reference to RFC 7684 in the new -01 version.
When we were starting work on RTM we intended to address LDP signaled IP/MPLS networks as well and that, as I recall, was the reason to use more generic IGP TLVs rather than TE-specific. Since LDP drifted out of scope, I agree, use of TE advertisements is more suitable. We'll work on that and share new update with you and the IGP WGs.


-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:55 PM
To: Loa Andersson
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

I’ve read the subject draft and think it offers a useful function to facilitate more accurate time synchronization in NTP/PTP deployments. One question I have is why the capability is signaled in the generic IGP TLV LSAs and LSPs rather than the TE advertisements when the document is scoped to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] LSPs? One reason I ask is that we are waiting on implementations of the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs draft. Having said that,
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have separate registry for the TLV LSAs and section 8 should reflect this. Also, OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes is now RFC 7684.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Loa Andersson []
>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
>To: Gregory Mirsky;;
>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft 
>Working Group and authors, <chair hat off> As a matter of fact I 
>believe this document should be progressed.
><chair hat on>
>This draft has been a working group document since early August, but 
>there has been no discussion on the document on the wg mailing list.
>There are of course two ways if interpreting this.
>- there is total agreement on the draft
>- there is no intrest in the draft
>I have no basis to decide which is the case.
>Can we plese have at least a few (non-author) comments on the mailing 
>list if it is time to start the wglc.
>mpls wg co-chair
>On 2015-12-15 07:21, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>Dear Chairs of the MPLS WG,
>>authors of the Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Network draft 
>>believe that all comments received during the WG adoption call been 
>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as the 
>>next step.
>>                 Regards,
>>                                 Greg
>>mpls mailing list

mpls mailing list