Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 20 January 2017 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
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 08162129B8E; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 04:44:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 FzN3T7woBWP4; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 04:44:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C690129B90; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 04:44:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=24261; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484916292; x=1486125892; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=b/a4zC2K/8kvIwIPiefwiXPXummrKrwy/gx0D3MR+1A=; b=g6jMACjacDXn9YVK8S0hLEXPqKZTuLpIpR43Qv+jUqUo+UHFQwRn51nj yo2Y5YyvqWrktV9Q9s0SpDKmugaXAkVAW/s3dK9Z2jPPwT4sdkyatMo9A dMeZsD0qgapk8v8dBd8XTCpCiyadY4s9TjhlYSnH2xs00S2QetxEdED4z o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AaAQD4BIJY/4cNJK1VCRkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYM9AQEBAQEfYIEJB41UkgOIBo0oggwqhXgCgg0/FAECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWMohGkBAQEEJ0QODgICAQgRAwEBAQEnBxYLERQJCAIEAQ0FG4hOAxgOsH46h?= =?us-ascii?q?zYNgwMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBQWKLYEJglGBSgcJAgEbByUMhSw?= =?us-ascii?q?BBI9rhSGGBDgBhmGGNkmEBoF3GIR3g02GG4Zwgy2IVgEfOFAiUxWGb3OIB4ENA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,258,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="197570754"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2017 12:44:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0KCioZY011810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:44:50 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:44:49 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:44:49 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
Thread-Index: AQHSbCJB5/J9FhRihUGkooHDmaxKNqE+xygAgAAe3oCAAAhzgIAADjuA///l8YCAAW6sgIAAA9UAgAAAtwCAAAQ8gP//smMAgABVU4D//605gAAKuHIAAAEVUIAAFz6hgAAGyCIA
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:44:49 +0000
Message-ID: <D4A77012.95F4B%acee@cisco.com>
References: <148414970343.8167.4538946698521330202.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmU9W5QP4EjbPezoCpdLHv1RJCrzJvxQmeTnAvjO_6vbJA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVrvyiwDp2kV3VLiQtqOaL=MaVjZugGbvgWnp6y3dwP3Q@mail.gmail.com> <95d41b52-5c85-869f-2139-6713816e9637@nostrum.com> <CA+RyBmWcvU70BZYRj8ZHUZrmkcwq1eHS38jFpyZOq3A_5eXZ9g@mail.gmail.com> <D4A55AE0.9483E%acee@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWrDhZUmVN0t8aLsL6F3ZfnvBu8FW_2VjDmwj-ercLd5w@mail.gmail.com> <f315026a140148898250f8fa3bdb0123@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWMBAXd+zntuAeOU9x7xs9BQSk7J-z9+yyUDvKPd3v2MA@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0301MB22660A73C0D5A96BA8F3F0D39D7E0@HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <D4A65103.94DF0%acee@cisco.com> <DM5PR05MB3001952D0DDD2AA672697094C77E0@DM5PR05MB3001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D4A6573B.94E53%acee@cisco.com> <DM5PR05MB3001ED6AF8296F5DBE5E38EFC77E0@DM5PR05MB3001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3f43cfdfe76e437bb2df6159e5644ae5@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <01e66ab2-aea1-4d60-63c6-9304d644381f@gredler.at>
In-Reply-To: <01e66ab2-aea1-4d60-63c6-9304d644381f@gredler.at>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <010D979BA7A98E4C8EE0F97AA251ED02@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/K1MiDhTl92x2xxoO36DM2MHy7o8>
Cc: "Abhay Roy \(akr\)" <akr@cisco.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:44:55 -0000

Hi Hannes, 

On 1/19/17, 11:30 PM, "Hannes Gredler" <hannes@gredler.at> wrote:

>hi les,
>
>we have taken turns long-time ago to advertise non-routing
>related information which is only relevant to controllers
>(l2bundles comes into mind ;-)).
>
>while it would have been nice to get at least notice that
>an IS-IS extension is being worked on (i mean prior to
>IANA asking for expert review :-/ ) i see no reason why we
>should hold this back. - we can argue perhaps whether it should
>be part of GENAPP or ROUTERCAP TLVs, but i cannot see the
>sky falling to advertise a non-routing related capability,
>that does not change frequently.

I agree but was just trying to get a better idea of precisely how the
information will be used and whether interface is the right granularity.

Thanks,
Acee 




>
>/hannes
>
>On 1/19/17 18:24, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>> John ­
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For me, this raises the age-old question of when it is/is not
>> appropriate to use IGPs for flooding information.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> This is clearly not TE information ­ you just happen to be using this in
>> conjunction with MPLS ­ but it is a generic capability. I do not see the
>> IGPs as the appropriate mechanism to flood generic interface
>> capabilities. It also, as Acee has pointed out, results in flooding
>> information to all nodes in the domain when only a few care about it.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>    Les
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> *From:*John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 8:54 AM
>> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee); Alexander Vainshtein; Greg Mirsky; Les
>> Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> *Cc:* Robert Sparks; mpls@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
>> isis-chairs@ietf.org; Abhay Roy (akr)
>> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Acee,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Relying on an omniscient controller is a non-starter in general and in
>> particular because the protocol by which it would learn each node¹s RTM
>> capabilities and distribute them to the other nodes is undefined.
>> Further, one of the ways by which an omniscient controller learns a
>> node¹s capabilities is by snooping the link/state database.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Yours Irrespectively,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> John
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> *From:*Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:47 AM
>> *To:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>;
>> Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>> <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>>; Greg Mirsky
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>; Les Ginsberg
>> (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>
>> *Cc:* Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com
>> <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>; mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>;
>> gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>;
>> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>; ietf@ietf.org
>> <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>; isis-chairs@ietf.org
>> <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org>; Abhay Roy (akr) <akr@cisco.com
>> <mailto:akr@cisco.com>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi John, 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> *From: *John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:43 AM
>> *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Alexander
>> Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>> <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>>, Greg Mirsky
>> <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>, "Les Ginsberg
>> (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>
>> *Cc: *Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com
>> <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>, "mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>"
>> <mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "gen-art@ietf.org
>> <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>" <gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>>,
>> "draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>"
>> <draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>>, "ietf@ietf.org
>> <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>,
>> "isis-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org>"
>> <isis-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)"
>> <akr@cisco.com <mailto:akr@cisco.com>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>     Acee,
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     We discussed all of this with you over a year ago and used your
>>     guidance in adding the indication of RTM capability to OSPF.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I¹m sorry but I focused mainly on the OSPF protocol aspects then and
>> didn¹t question the use case. This question came up in the IS-IS WG
>> discussions. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Acee
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Yours Irrespectively,
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     John
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     *From:*Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>>     *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:38 AM
>>     *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>>     <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>>; Greg Mirsky
>>     <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>; Les Ginsberg
>>     (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>
>>     *Cc:* Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com
>>     <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>; mpls@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>; gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>;
>>     draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>; ietf@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>; isis-chairs@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org>; Abhay Roy (akr) <akr@cisco.com
>>     <mailto:akr@cisco.com>>
>>     *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     I guess what we were trying to envision the use case and whether it
>>     makes sense for all the nodes in the IGP routing domain to have this
>>     information. Would the LSP ingress LSR only need to if the egress
>>     LSR supports RTM and it is best effort recording for transit LSRs in
>>     the path?  
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Additionally, if it is needed in the IGPs, should there also be a
>>     BGP-LS Link Attribute TLV proposed?
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Thanks,
>> 
>>     Acee 
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     *From: *Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>>     <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>>
>>     *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:15 AM
>>     *To: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
>>     <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>
>>     *Cc: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Robert
>>     Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>,
>>     "mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "gen-art@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>" <gen-art@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>>,
>>     "draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>"
>>     <draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>>,
>>     "ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org>" <isis-chairs@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <akr@cisco.com
>>     <mailto:akr@cisco.com>>
>>     *Subject: *RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>         Hi all,
>> 
>>         I concur with Greg: from my POV an interoperable solution should
>>         not depend on an omniscient NMS client distributing information
>>         about capabilities of each node to each other node.
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         Regards,
>> 
>>         Sasha
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         Office: +972-39266302
>> 
>>         Cell:      +972-549266302
>> 
>>         Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>>         <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
>>         *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:01 PM
>>         *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com
>>         <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>
>>         *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com
>>         <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>; Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com
>>         <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>; mpls@ietf.org
>>         <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>; gen-art@ietf.org
>>         <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>;
>>         draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>>         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>;
>>         ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>; isis-chairs@ietf.org
>>         <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org>; Abhay Roy (akr) <akr@cisco.com
>>         <mailto:akr@cisco.com>>
>>         *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of
>>draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         Hi Les,
>> 
>>         I believe that IGP extensions to advertise RTM capability are
>>         required.
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         Regards,
>> 
>>         Greg
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>         <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>             Greg ­
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             I am having trouble understanding your response.
>> 
>>             The question we are raising is whether we should extend the
>>             IGPs to support advertising RTM capability ­ an alternative
>>             being to retrieve the capability via network management.
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             Saying that the IGP functionality is optional and/or
>>             wouldn¹t always be advertised doesn¹t really answer the
>>             question of whether we should or should not define the IGP
>>             extensions.
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             Could you respond more directly to this point?
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>                Les
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com
>>             <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>]
>>             *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:44 AM
>>             *To:* Acee Lindem (acee)
>>             *Cc:* Robert Sparks; mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>;
>>             gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>;
>>             draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>;
>>             ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>; Les Ginsberg
>>             (ginsberg); isis-chairs@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org>; Abhay Roy (akr)
>> 
>> 
>>             *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of
>>             draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             Hi Acee,
>> 
>>             the draft defines optional functionality. If an operator has
>>             no use neither for PTP's Transparent Clock, nor RTM itself
>>             as performance metric, then RTM sub-TLV would not be
>>             included and thus it would not be flooded. Of course, it be
>>             right to reflect RTM capability through YANG data model,
>>             thus allowing SDN scenario you've described.
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             Regards,
>> 
>>             Greg
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
>>             <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>             Hi Greg,
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             Although it is a bit late, we¹ve had some discussions
>>             amongst the IS-IS and OSPF chairs and are wondering whether
>>             the interface capability belongs in the IGPs. This will be
>>             flooded throughout the entire routing domain ­ is it really
>>             needed on every node or will it the RTM testing be initiated
>>             from an omniscient NMS client that would know the
>>             capabilities of each node or easily query them using YANG?
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             Thanks,
>> 
>>             Acee
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             *From: *mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky
>>             <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
>>             *Date: *Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:25 PM
>>             *To: *Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com
>>             <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>
>>             *Cc: *"mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "gen-art@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>" <gen-art@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>>,
>>             "draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>"
>>             <draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>>,
>>             "ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org
>>             <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>
>>             *Subject: *Re: [mpls] Review of
>>             draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>                 Hi Robert,
>> 
>>                 thank you for the most expedient review and comments.
>>                 I'll make changes in Section 2 per your suggestion.
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                 Regards,
>> 
>>                 Greg
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                 On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Robert Sparks
>>                 <rjsparks@nostrum.com <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>
>>wrote:
>> 
>>                 The changes all look good.
>> 
>>                 I still think you should say something in the document
>>                 about what "the time of packet arrival" and
>>                 "transmission" means, and call out the point you made
>>                 about being careful to not introduce apparent jitter by
>>                 not making those measurements consistently. (The
>>                 definitions you point to in your earlier mail from
>>                 G.8013 don't really help - they just say "time of packet
>>                 arrival". Again, the first and last bit are likely to be
>>                 several nanoseconds apart so I think it matters. Perhaps
>>                 you're saying it doesn't matter as long as each node is
>>                 consistent (there will be error in the residence time
>>                 measurement, but it will be constant at each node, so
>>                 the sum of errors will be constant, and the clocks will
>>                 be ok?)
>> 
>>                 Please look at the new first paragraph of section 2 -
>>                 there's a mix of "as case" and "in case" that should be
>>                 made consistent. I suspect it would be easiest to simply
>>                 say "referred to as using a one-step clock" and
>>                 "referred to as using a two-step clock" or similar.
>> 
>>                 RjS
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                 On 1/18/17 12:03 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>> 
>>                     Hi Robert,
>> 
>>                     Sasha Vainshtein came with elegant idea to address
>>                     disconnection between discussion of one-step and
>>                     two-step modes that you've pointed out. We've moved
>>                     Section 7 as sub-section into Section 2 now.
>>                     Attached are updated diff and the proposed new
>>                     version -13.
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                     Regards,
>> 
>>                     Greg
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                     On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Greg Mirsky
>>                     <gregimirsky@gmail.com
>>                     <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>                     Hi Robert,
>> 
>>                     once again, thank you for your thorough review and
>>                     the most detailed comments. I've prepared updated
>>                     version and would greatly appreciate if you review
>>                     the changes and let us know whether your comments
>>                     been addressed. Attached are diff and the new
>>version.
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                     Regards,
>> 
>>                     Greg
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                     On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Robert Sparks
>>                     <rjsparks@nostrum.com <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>
>>                     wrote:
>> 
>>                         Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>>                         Review result: Ready with Nits
>> 
>>                         I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this
>>                         draft. The General Area
>>                         Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents
>>                         being processed
>>                         by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat
>>                         these comments just
>>                         like any other last call comments.
>> 
>>                         For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>                         <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> 
>>                         Document: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
>>                         Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>>                         Review Date: 2017-01-10
>>                         IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-17
>>                         IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-02
>> 
>>                         Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as a
>>                         Proposed Standard
>> 
>>                         I have two primary comments. I expect both are
>>                         rooted in the authors
>>                         and working group knowing what the document
>>                         means instead of seeing
>>                         what
>>                         it says or doesn't say:
>> 
>>                         1) The document is loose with its use of
>>                         'packet', and where TTLs
>>                         appear when
>>                         they are discussed. It might be helpful to
>>                         rephrase the text that
>>                         speaks
>>                         of RTM packets in terms of RTM messages that are
>>                         encoded as G-ACh
>>                         messages and
>>                         not refer to packets unless you mean the whole
>>                         encapsulated packet
>>                         with MPLS
>>                         header, ACH, and G-ACh message.
>> 
>>                         2) Since this new mechanic speaks in terms of
>>                         fractional nanoseconds,
>>                         some
>>                         discussion of what trigger-point you intend
>>                         people to use for taking
>>                         the
>>                         precise time of a packet's arrival or departure
>>                         seems warranted. (The
>>                         first and
>>                         last bit of the whole encapsulated packet above
>>                         are going to appear at
>>                         the
>>                         physical layer many nanoseconds apart at OC192
>>                         speeds if I've done the
>>                         math
>>                         right). It may be obvious to the folks
>>                         discussing this, but it's not
>>                         obvious
>>                         from the document.  If it's _not_ obvious and
>>                         variation in technique
>>                         is
>>                         expected, then some discussion about issues that
>>                         might arise from
>>                         different
>>                         implementation choices would be welcome.
>> 
>>                         The rest of these are editorial nits:
>> 
>>                         It would help to pull an overview description of
>>                         the difference
>>                         between
>>                         one-step and two-step much earlier in the
>>                         document. I suggest in the
>>                         overview
>>                         in section 2. Otherwise, the reader really has
>>                         to jump forward and
>>                         read section
>>                         7 before section 3's 5th bullet makes any sense.
>> 
>>                         In section 3, "IANA will be asked" should be
>>                         made active. Say "This
>>                         document
>>                         asks IANA to" and point to the IANA
>>                         consideration section. Apply
>>                         similar
>>                         treatment to the other places where you talk
>>                         about future IANA
>>                         actions.
>> 
>>                         There are several places where there are missing
>>                         words (typically
>>                         articles or
>>                         prepositions). You're less likely to end up with
>>                         misinterpretations
>>                         during the
>>                         RFC Editor phase if you provide them before the
>>                         document gets that far
>>                         in the
>>                         process. The spots I found most disruptive were
>>                         these (this is not
>>                         intended to
>>                         be exhaustive):
>> 
>>                           Section 3: "set 1 according" -> "set to 1
>>                         according"
>>                           Section 3: "the Table 19 [IEEE..." -> "Table
>>                         19 of [IEEE..."
>>                           Section 4.2: "Detailed discussion of ... modes
>>                         in Section 7."
>>                                                 -> "Detailed discussion
>>                         of ... modes appears
>>                         in Section 7."
>>                           Section 10: "most of" -> "most of all"
>> 
>>                         In Setion 3.1 at "identity of the source port",
>>                         please point into the
>>                         document
>>                         that defines this identity and its
>>                         representation. I suspect this is a
>>                         pointer
>>                         into a specific section in IEEE.1588.2008].
>> 
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>                 
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>          
>>