Return-Path: 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 E41481B3354 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 8ttkIGhF2OE8 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6CF81B3342 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:09:08 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f790b6d000004359-4c-5524eff90489 Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FF.6A.17241.9FFE4255; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 11:08:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:09:02 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , 'Ross Callon' , "mpls@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf Thread-Index: AQHQb/4e6lxvQUESVUS7PAp42TBBtZ1CTgIAgAD8mmA= Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:09:02 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B94362A@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <032b01d07175$7a6535f0$6f2fa1d0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <032b01d07175$7a6535f0$6f2fa1d0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B94362Aeusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiO6v9yqhBt/+slr86LnBbDHh1AMm i++XlrBY3Fq6ktXi74orLA6sHkuW/GTyuN50ld1jxeaVjB5fLn9mC2CJ4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL 4Mro2PiJpaB7E2PF7E/bWRsYL89n7GLk5JAQMJFof3GeHcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAUUaJ1Zen M0I4yxglLvdvZgGpYhMwknixsQesQ0SgXOLF5nXMIEXMAjsYJW4fns0KkhAWiJbYOv0CUIID qChGYl6LIUS9lcSsH21sIDaLgIrE9LbjYDavgK/E22mL2CGWvQCas/Qk2HmcAtYS147NALMZ gc77fmoNE4jNLCAucevJfCaIswUkluw5zwxhi0q8fPyPFcJWkpi09BwryA3MAvkSO7YmQuwS lDg58wnLBEbRWUgmzUKomoWkCqJER2LB7k9sELa2xLKFr5lh7DMHHjMhiy9gZF/FyFFanFqW m25kuIkRGIvHJNgcdzAu+GR5iFGAg1GJhzchWCVUiDWxrLgy9xCjNAeLkjhv2ZWDIUIC6Ykl qdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYA07U107unVy7XUqAU2HV1NSnvvMztvf0iVztufS552Xd lzV//36yrHseenTujA0G9a+fHJVdfCJ28f2He/uYvGSfC9q6fLNmsru0Ttbr34wckWtLOZ6t nKCYddNzd3h78CaBn886PrI/X7kwdS/3Zo+IT3N/XzutPif2S9bSVdqRE8wXczxyeq/EUpyR aKjFXFScCABMaviepgIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:09:13 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B94362Aeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 ma= il 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 i= gnored on receipt" for reserved fields or bits/flags is falling out of favo= r as accepted form of expression. Would appreciate suggestions on how to im= prove it. Regards, Greg From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:58 PM To: 'Ross Callon'; mpls@ietf.org Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@t= ools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mp= ls-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:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ross Callon Sent: 06 April 2015 01:10 To: mpls@ietf.org Cc: Ross Callon; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mp= ls-tp-oam-conf This working group last call has now ended. There was one public response (to the MPLS working group) in support. I als= o got private responses of support from two of the authors. Otherwise there= were no responses (neither in favor nor opposed). This is not sufficient t= o constitute "rough consensus". As such the working group last call has fai= led. My inclination is to wait for the July IETF (in Prague), and give the autho= rs 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:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ross Callon Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:46 PM To: mpls@ietf.org Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ie= tf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@tools.ietf.org Subject: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-t= p-oam-conf Working Group, This is to initiate a working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-m= pls-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 (mpls@ietf.org). There are no IPR disclosures against this document. All the authors have st= ated that they are not aware of any IPR that relates to this draft (two of the responses w= ere private to the WG chairs). This working group last call ends Thursday April 2, 2015. Ross for the MPLS WG chairs --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B94362Aeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Adrian,

hope everything is well a= nd getting better.

Many thanks for taking ti= me to review this document and share your comments. I’ll need more ti= me 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:=

in another discussion, it= was pointed to me that “transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt&#= 8221; for reserved fields or bits/flags is falling out of favor as accepted form of expression. Would appreciate suggestions on how to improve it.

 <= /p>

    &= nbsp;           Regards,<= o:p>

    &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;  Greg

 <= /p>

From: mpls [ma= ilto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:58 PM
To: 'Ross Callon'; mpls@ietf.org
Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam= -conf@tools.ietf.org
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 p= articipate in WG last calls, and since Dallas I've been sick).

 = ;

I have no = objection to this document and it addresses a specific

requiremen= t to provide a mechanism to enable MPLS OAM features that is

independen= t from the control plane, but that nevertheless does not<= /p>

require th= e MCN either.

 = ;

I wonder w= hether 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 tr= ansmitted as zero and ignored on receipt - currently this is

deduced fr= om the figures through a variety of language.

 = ;

My final t= hought 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 ne= ed to, but it is probably turning on and off exactly the same

OAM functi= on, so it might save some text to use the same structures.

 = ;

Cheers,

Adrian

 = ;

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf= .org] On Behalf Of Ross Callon
Sent: 06 April 2015 01:10
To: mpls@ietf.org
Cc: Ross Callon; mpls-= chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-= ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

 

This working group last c= all has now ended.

 <= /p>

There was one public resp= onse (to the MPLS working group) in support. I also got private responses o= f support from two of the authors. Otherwise there were no responses (neither in favor nor opposed). This is not sufficient to con= stitute “rough consensus”. As such the working group last call = has failed.

 <= /p>

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

 <= /p>

Thanks, Ross

(as WG co-chair)

 <= /p>

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf= .org] On Behalf Of Ross Callon
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:46 PM
To: mpls@ietf.org
Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.= ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@tools.ietf.org
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 las= t 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 w= g mailing list (mpls@ietf.org).

 

There are no IPR disclosures against th= is document. All the authors have stated that they

are not aware of any IPR that relates t= o this draft (two of the responses were private to

the WG chairs).

 

This working group last call ends Thurs= day  April 2, 2015. 

 

Ross

for the MPLS WG chairs

 

 

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B94362Aeusaamb103erics_--