Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Got it, thanks.
Stored for next revision.
A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hejia (Jia) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 24 May 2013 11:57
> To: [e-mail]; 'Loa Andersson'; 'Martin Vigoureux';
draft-farbryantrel-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
> 
> Adrian,
> 
> Thanks for your prompt response. You are so quick. I noticed you have already
> uploaded another WG version when I got time to read emails today:-)
> If possible, I guess the last sentence of the second paragraph can be more
> precise by adding "ACH" before "TLVs" which reads
> 
> " the use of ACH TLVs is undesirable."  (typo: s/in/is)
> 
> This will help to remove the impact to other TLVs used in G-ACh messages but
> not in the ACH.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> B.R.
> Jia
> 
> 
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2013年5月23日 20:15
> 收件人: Hejia (Jia); 'Loa Andersson'; 'Martin Vigoureux';
draft-farbryantrel-mpls-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 抄送: [e-mail]
> 主题: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
> 
> Thanks Jia,
> 
> Your point is well taken and the Abstract in the working copy (ready to post)
> now reads...
> 
>    The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of
>    the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header
>    (ACH).  RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be
>    carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between
>    the fixed header fields and the G-ACh message.  These TLVs are called
>    ACH TLVs
> 
>    No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses an ACH TLV.  Furthermore,
>    it is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant
>    problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to
>    be processed substantially in hardware, the use of TLVs in
>    undesirable.
> 
>    This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the
>    associated registry.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hejia (Jia) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 23 May 2013 12:52
> > To: Loa Andersson; Martin Vigoureux; draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed a 01 version of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv is
available.
> So I
> > based my MPLS RT review on that version. I think the document is coherent,
> > useful, technically sound and ready to be adopted as a WG draft. Just one
> > comment:
> >
> > 1) In the Abstract part, it is written as
> >
> >    No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses a TLV. Furthermore, it
> >    is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant
> >    problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to
> >    be processed substantially in hardware, the use of TLVs in
> >    undesirable.
> >
> > The whole paragraph seems talking generally about TLVs for G-ACh messages,
> > not specifically an ACH TLV. This might not be so accurate since we have
some
> G-
> > ACh channel type using TLVs in its message, e.g. RFC 6428 defines a source
> MEP-
> > ID TLV for the MPLS-TP CV type which also requires hardware processing. I
> think
> > it might be better to simply say ACH TLV is not used and may cause
additional
> > processing which is not desirable. Or some better wording...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > B.R.
> > Jia
> >
> >
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > 发送时间: 2013年5月8日 16:01
> > 收件人: Lizhong Jin; Hejia (Jia); Gregory Mirsky; Eric Osborne (eosborne);
> Martin
> > Vigoureux
> > 抄送: [e-mail]; mpls-
> > [e-mail]
> > 主题: MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
> >
> > Jia, Lizhong, Greg and Eric,
> >
> > You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
> > draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00.
> >
> > Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
> > that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
> > document.
> >
> > Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it
> > useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational
> > networks), and is the document technically sound?  We are interested
> > in knowing whether the document is ready to be considered for WG
> > adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be perfect at this point, but should be
> > a good start).
> >
> > Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and
> > WG secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
> > may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
> >
> > Are you able to review this draft by Mat 24, 2013?
> >
> > Thanks, Loa
> > (as MPLS WG chair)
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> > Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> > Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]