Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

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

Yeah, it's a boring draft. Did you expect me to co-author anything else?

The point was that when I started the I-D lots of people were saying "it's
complex" and "it can't be done" and "it won't be backward compatible".

So the I-D says "here it is"

A (sorry not to offer you excitement)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 19 November 2012 12:38
> To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> 
> After getting to section 6 and its features (requirements!), I find
> myself underwhelmed; is that it?  Well, I suppose so, it is
> Informational and not Standards Track.
> 
> Meanwhile, I suggest some editorial issues.
> 
> Title
> Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs
> [Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Interface MIPs
> seems a more informative statement unless and until you get to the
> definition of Internal in s3; and s6, which is the crux of the document
> says
> The preferred solution to per-interface MIP message handling is
>    presented in this section]
> 
> s1
> two (or more) MIPs per node on both sides of the forwarding engine.
> [two on both sides sounds like four in total to me; suggest 'one on each
> side of the forwarding engine']
> 
> s4
>    o  CV between a MEP and a MIP
> [expand CV on first use]
> 
> s5
> In-band OAM messages are sent using the G-ACh [RFC5586] for MPLS-TP
>    LSPs and MPLS-TP PWs, respectively.
> ['respectively' suggests to me that there should be two precedents, not
> just RFC5586; the second paragraph specifies RFC5586 for LSPs,
> RFC6423/RFC4385 for PWs, in which case, strike this sentence as
> redundant]
> 
> s6
> The appendix of this document contains a
>    few solutions that the authors have discarded which have been left in
>    the document for informational purposes.
> [not any more they haven't!]
> 
> The node itself is addresses
> [The node itself is addressed]
> 
> The identification information indside
> [The identification information inside ]
> 
> MIP identifiers are not know
> [MIP identifiers are not known]
> 
> reserved MIP address
> [reserved MIP addressses or a reserved MIP address]
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; "MPLS-TP ad
> hoc team" <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:16 PM
> 
> > Working Group,
> >
> > This is to start a 2 week working group last call on
> > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map.
> >
> > Please send your comments to the mpls working group mailing
> > list ([e-mail]).
> >
> > Please send both technical comments, and if you are happy with the
> > document as is also indications of support.
> >
> > This working group last call will end on November 28.
> >
> > /Loa
> > for the wg co-chairs
> >