Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping
Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 12 March 2015 16:06 UTC
Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9FE1A8911 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 mGf9INErRKhp for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0777.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:777]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 698DB1A896A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.106.15; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:06:18 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.61]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.61]) with mapi id 15.01.0106.007; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:06:17 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Gregory Mirsky' <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org" <draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping
Thread-Index: AQHQUBZCJvzLYgooPEWTjWPAAzQbFJ0Ue/JggAOjzBCAAOqpgIAAEiNQ
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:06:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CO1PR05MB4424DBEDC620A84443865DFAE060@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <54EC4776.5040402@pi.nu> <54F7C742.10906@pi.nu> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B91CA76@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <CO1PR05MB44272B31CD58E4CC42D040EAE060@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <010301d05cd5$4bd9d1a0$e38d74e0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <010301d05cd5$4bd9d1a0$e38d74e0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
authentication-results: olddog.co.uk; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB443;
x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(377454003)(164054003)(99286002)(33656002)(16236675004)(86362001)(15975445007)(19609705001)(19625215002)(19300405004)(19580395003)(106116001)(19580405001)(74316001)(54356999)(122556002)(93886004)(40100003)(2950100001)(102836002)(2900100001)(50986999)(76176999)(46102003)(66066001)(2201001)(87936001)(2656002)(62966003)(77156002)(2501003)(230783001)(92566002)(76576001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO1PR05MB4437DA24BAE43612059DEB7AE060@CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5002009)(5005006); SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB443;
x-forefront-prvs: 05134F8B4F
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CO1PR05MB4424DBEDC620A84443865DFAE060CO1PR05MB442namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Mar 2015 16:06:17.3351 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR05MB443
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/LEDRgoYfPvcsdBlb2Rz9l5cXvlk>
Cc: "mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:06:45 -0000
Works for me! Ron From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:01 AM To: Ronald Bonica; 'Gregory Mirsky'; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org Cc: mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping Looks informational to me. And looks like 2119 language is appropriate. Thanks, Adrian From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net] Sent: 12 March 2015 01:24 To: Gregory Mirsky; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org> Cc: mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>; mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping Greg, In the message below, you question whether draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping should be INFORMATIONAL or PS. In a similar vein, you ask whether RFC 2119 language should be used. When I wrote the draft, I considered both, couldn’t decide, and tossed a coin ;-) AFAIKS, the IETFs criteria for PS are a bit fuzzy. You might argue that the draft should be PS because it defines “bits on the wire”. But on the other hand, you might argue that it doesn’t need to be PS because: - It doesn’t address interoperability requirements (because the sender and receiver are the same node) - It doesn’t request any IANA assignments I would be very happy to let somebody else decide whether the draft should be INFORMATIONAL or PS. Maybe the chairs or ADs can offer an opinion? Ron From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:02 PM To: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org> Cc: mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>; mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping Dear All, I've been assigned to review draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping. The document is very well written, the problem in focus is clearly stated, and the proposed solution well described. I do have a number of concerns with the status of the document and the approach as presented: • document intended track is Informational even though the solution being positioned as "new, light-weight protocol". If this is indeed new protocol or even extension of the existing one, then I expect there must be requests to IANA allocations. At this time "This document makes no request of IANA." Either LSP Self-ping can be characterized through re-use of already existing protocols and approaches, or document should be switched to Standards track;
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ron Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Gregory Mirsky
- [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-p… Mach Chen
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… lizho.jin@gmail.com
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… lizho.jin@gmail.com
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Lizhong Jin
- Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-se… Loa Andersson