Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

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.

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:55 PM
To: Loa Andersson
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org
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.

Thanks,
Acee
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
>To: Gregory Mirsky; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
>Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@tools.ietf.org
>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.
>/Loa
>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 
>>addressed.
>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as the 
>>next step.
>>                 Regards,
>>                                 Greg
>>_______________________________________________
>>mpls mailing list
>>mpls@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls