Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework

Hi Lou, et. al,
though it might be not canonical but often "node that is both leaf and branch node" referred as "bud node".

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:37 AM
To: Zhenlong Cui; mpls@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework

Zhenlong,

See below.  I've cut topics with resolutions/agreements.

On 11/14/2013 9:41 PM, Zhenlong Cui wrote:
> Loa,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. Please see below for responses in-line.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:11 AM
>> To: Zhenlong Cui; mpls@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on 
>> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
>>
>> Zhenlong,
>>
>> Thank you for the comments.
>>
>> Here are your comments, as extracted from word, and my responses.
>> (Clearly the page numbers are wrong.)
>>

[...]

>>
>>> Page 203: Inserted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM OAM Packets is sent to 
>>> all leaves and processed by Page 203: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 
>>> PM every OAM packet Page 203: Comment [zc4] zc 11/14/2013 8:42:00 PM 
>>> I think that's not necessarily true. Because some on-demand OAM
>> packets may be dropped
>>> by intermediate node. That mean not every OAM packet is sent to leaves.
>>> Page 203: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM is sent to all leaves, 
>>> and thus can impact
>>
>> So your point is that an intermediate node may drop an OAM packet?  If so, yes, this is true for P2P case too.
>>
>> How about:
>> DROP (redundant statement):
>>   thus every OAM packet is sent to all leaves, s/can impact/may be 
>> processed by
> 
> My primary concern:
> I think there is a discrepancy between "every OAM packet is sent to 
> all leaves" and "To address a packet to an intermediate node in the 
> tree, TTL based ..."
> 
> My understanding:
>  "every OAM packet is sent to all leaves" is equal to "no OAM packet is sent to branches".
>  On the other hand, "To address a packet to an intermediate node in the tree, TTL based ...", it seems meaning that "the root may send OAM packet to branches".
> 
>  Is my understanding correct?
> 

Okay, I understand your point.  I think your reading / the text does not match our intent.  (Which is certainly to allow for both MIP and MEP
processing.)

How about:
s/to all leaves/towards all leaves

Which will result in:
     All the traffic sent over a P2MP transport path, including
     OAM packets generated by a MEP, is sent (multicast) from the
     root towards all the leaves, and thus may be processed by all
     the MEs in a P2MP MEG.

[...]

> 
>>
>>> Page 307: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 7:24:00 PM and Page 307: Inserted zc
>>> 11/14/2013 7:24:00 PM or Page 307: Comment [zc11] zc 11/14/2013
>>> 8:02:00 PM It is correct?
>> How about:
>> s/and/and, perhaps,
> 
> s/and/and? Is this a mistake?
> My propose is s/and/or.
> 
> 

Sorry for not being clear.  I was proposing the following final text:
    Fault notification happens from the node
    identifying the fault to the root node and, perhaps, from the
    leaves to the root via an out of band path.

Now rereading the sentence I think I'd prefer just dropping the reference to leaves as it really doesn't add anything.  How about:
      Fault notification happens from the node
      identifying the fault to the root node via an out of band path.

And also dropping "In either case" immediately following to align the next sentence.

That's it.  Thank you again for your comments.

Lou

> Best regards,
> zhenlong
> 
[...]
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls