Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,
hope everything is well and getting better.
Many thanks for taking time to review this document and share your comments. I'll need more time to think how to address them and will send another mail perhaps in a week. In the meantime, I've a question. You've suggested:
"... unassigned bits MUST be transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt ..."
in another discussion, it was pointed to me that "transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt" for reserved fields or bits/flags is falling out of favor as accepted form of expression. Would appreciate suggestions on how to improve it.

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:58 PM
To: 'Ross Callon'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

Hi Ross,

Apologies for a late review from me, as well (my excuses is that as AD
I didn't participate in WG last calls, and since Dallas I've been sick).

I have no objection to this document and it addresses a specific
requirement to provide a mechanism to enable MPLS OAM features that is
independent from the control plane, but that nevertheless does not
require the MCN either.

I wonder whether the various bit flag arrays (such as Figure 1/Table 1,
Figure 2, Figure 7) should be managed by IANA? In any case, it would be
helpful to use some more consistent language to say that unassigned bits
MUST be transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt - currently this is
deduced from the figures through a variety of language.

My final thought is to ask why this document doesn't share data
structures with draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext. Of course, it
doesn't need to, but it is probably turning on and off exactly the same
OAM function, so it might save some text to use the same structures.

Cheers,
Adrian

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> On Behalf Of Ross Callon
Sent: 06 April 2015 01:10
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Ross Callon; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

This working group last call has now ended.

There was one public response (to the MPLS working group) in support. I also got private responses of support from two of the authors. Otherwise there were no responses (neither in favor nor opposed). This is not sufficient to constitute "rough consensus". As such the working group last call has failed.

My inclination is to wait for the July IETF (in Prague), and give the authors an opportunity to present and solicit additional support. Depending upon the response there, we may then repeat the WGLC.

Thanks, Ross
(as WG co-chair)

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> On Behalf Of Ross Callon
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:46 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

Working Group,

This is to initiate a working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-09.
Because this WGLC will span the IETF in Dallas, it will be extended to just over three weeks.

Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>).

There are no IPR disclosures against this document. All the authors have stated that they
are not aware of any IPR that relates to this draft (two of the responses were private to
the WG chairs).

This working group last call ends Thursday  April 2, 2015.

Ross
for the MPLS WG chairs