Re: [mpls] [CCAMP] WG Last Call draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08

zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Thu, 12 July 2012 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
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 3D90B21F87A1; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FfauUcbHDuoV; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC7D21F879D; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 286202268279496; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:20:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 61410.3982341746; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:27:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q6C9RWNn041720; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:27:32 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8191104@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 84DD3888:4D500AED-48257A39:002A76DA; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF84DD3888.4D500AED-ON48257A39.002A76DA-48257A39.0033F3E6@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:27:28 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-07-12 17:27:35, Serialize complete at 2012-07-12 17:27:35
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0033F3E248257A39_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q6C9RWNn041720
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] [CCAMP] WG Last Call draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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 Jul 2012 09:27:20 -0000

Hi Deborah

Comments from my side according to the link 
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08.txt 


Line 94, As a reference here ,RFC3473 is better than RFC3209?  See the 
descripiton in section 1.2 4) of RFC6373

Line 98, MPLS OAM SHOULD be MPLS-TP OAM? Since the title is for 
configuring MPLS-TP OAM

Line 108-109, T-LDP can be not mentioned here since this draft are 
focusing on the LSP

Line 111, Three should be changed to four since FMS is also MPLS-TP OAM 
function.

Line 187, Locked should be change to lock according to RFC6427

Linde 190, CSF should be addressed or deleted since this draft is ready 
for last call, not say that for further study in the context of this 
document.

Line 206, There is no need to talk about LSP Ping here since the following 
section (like line 213 ) said "forward the RSVP-TE
          message"

Line 257, For integrity, shoud be  Delay, Delay variation (jitter) and 
Throughput?

Line 265, The title should be changed since this section describes not 
only FMS, but aslo performance measurement. Alternatively,
          line 267-279 should be moved into section 3.1.2

Line 269, Throughput is not proactive OAM fucntion according RFC6371

Line 290, IMHO since "OAM Configuration TLV" is defined in the other 
document, the figure should not appear here.

Line 368,  As discussed in the mailinglist when polling the draft
 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03, 
the tunnel number assigned by the egress
           LER should be carried back. This issue can be addressed here or 
in that or other document, but I am afraid the current description
           needs to be changed.

Line 383-385 This section should be deleted for last call

Line 579  Throughput belongs to on-demand OAM function...

Line 763   Locked should be lock


Best regards

Fei



"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> 
发件人:  ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
2012-07-11 03:10

收件人
"ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
抄送
"mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
主题
[CCAMP] WG Last Call draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08






Working Group(s),

This is to start a Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08.

Please send your comments to the CCAMP WG mailing list.

This working group last call ends July 24th.

Deborah (and Lou)


_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp