Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 13 June 2020 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
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 47AD73A094B; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 maYOhrZOalxl; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AD1D3A0916; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id q19so14215782lji.2; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ozU/4x6pyJf3YrFbddz+3LtI3EMxyF1tz/g5ZxA+/To=; b=tbOZJuRfQH6crf4OnG3eIw0q05DhjWBX5O2jIO7XgikwMCqU/GpcUeaqUxiwP+pxtq NUtHaNCLU3LQu7FdFU56KystCEW1RD7OvADwvzchj708dElg0aHsW0nyehkwcJ2R7nJY 7itP4hx7Vwe3sSpjyLjkVMZm5Uzq3MJYYaF6qIGkcoGbYb0qHkoIJ2qXKbbMTSQ8or0L gV0EXzdnt/VTB7xPEVyWu7RQA9IHp30ndlSyVrYYIujX4/Srj1jR46+rery7bCNZI2ON I9jWRYQHXj4h5POGeK4n54NjvEzMWuKXxUgi+rh7EJ6HNiy9D/qqwevJVOtJeWUFKnaB YQag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ozU/4x6pyJf3YrFbddz+3LtI3EMxyF1tz/g5ZxA+/To=; b=kc4Mu0kBsY5VtbCYAE8tA8qEX+kKspuHbp7svF8nypeUryfTi25zWcCApU23vSizfr 9I1MK8pPW5Z9IpNiApmFbxoE96rdUMWWK2eed6ZIoB16Eel8xtuNbNWFddx+lQ/buoTf rSPxbsJRUV2XiZoHXkVKsboDp5Vze2s05wsm6fLUU7TJSuYYhDEWLTcTZIa/aOtFfQFT WFUiQU6be8dXgalumi/CFfOCJcLyNXko8vhy4cJZTViiknHVTZOIbLJ0/Yshhhm41Uwe ELebadURWyborxjmsCe1ChEQ+xeQpWMUUQoUzPcfOmfWPBD4bEx96HRW1pTj30v6qZrW bgKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5314aqJmr4EmUZv64M0/q6ow4kginjldxoK3LiKY9YePINi+oKWX A7wIfmX+SWOZfdu3hxRSZUlZt2UlJS4qJiHuwA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzEGZ/WQmcu0dHiNFV0KE87pCXoFpv6YOCnM4CfIyVmv9/9NOSG5ajh/mS75qo6uEL4DkYhg2NSJY+WBclKD7c=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:112e:: with SMTP id e14mr8393427ljo.338.1592057247977; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CH2PR19MB40241A395AAD7976CD74FE11FCA40@CH2PR19MB4024.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR13MB3117086E43C785B4A327D942F2820@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAMZsk6ewhjakQYhdrh-_EH1Tr8exczygkK_xxaj5YdG570ihfA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR13MB31172BA24640D22EC6C79782F29E0@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB31172BA24640D22EC6C79782F29E0@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:07:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6fgBMsywY0nkdPSmuYPL=LM+6jtPWiPgA3UTU3nvHdN1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org" <draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ba555805a7f7b69f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Oc6mbxXdrlM-CknuLXkQIh_PrRY>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:07:33 -0000

Thanks Huaimo for the pointer.
We will refer to this draft as well.

Thanks,
Rakesh



On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:12 AM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
wrote:

> Hi Rakesh,
>
>     Another SR P2MP draft is draft-shen-spring-p2mp-transport-chain.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:03 AM
> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>om>; mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>rg>;
> mpls-chairs@ietf.org <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>rg>;
> draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org <
> draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for
> draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr
>
> Thank you Huaimo for the detailed review and your support for the adoption.
> Attached please find the updated document and diffs that address your
> comments.
> Please see responses inline with <RG>..
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:52 PM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>     I have reviewed the document and have the following comments.
>
>     1.  The document is useful and technically sound. It can be considered
> for WG adoption.
>
>
> <RG> Thank you.
>
>
>     2.  The document seems talking about the Loss Measurement Message
> and Delay Measurement Message. Should it have some texts for Combined
> Loss/Delay Measurement Message?
>
>
> <RG> Added section 6.3.
>
>
>     3.  There are a couple of IETF drafts about SR P2MP Path.. The
> document just mentions one of them and the Performance Measurement for a SR
> P2MP Path (or policy) is based on this one draft. Should the Performance
> Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or policy) be general enough for all?
>
> <RG> do you have a specific P2MP draft on mind that should also be
> included in the example?
>
>
>     4.  It seems that the Performance Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or
> policy) is limited to one way and out-of-band. Should the document add some
> texts talking about these limitations?
>
>
> <RG> Updated section 7.
>
>
>     5.  The registry for the newly defined Return Path TLV Type and Block
> Number TLV Type is missing in the document. Is it the "MPLS Loss/Delay
> Measurement TLV Object" registry?
>
>
> <RG> Updated IANA section.
>
>
>     6.  It seems that a new registry should be defined for the Sub-TLV
> types under the Return Path TLV in the document.
>
>
> <RG> Added in IANA section.
>
>
>     7.  In section 5.1. and section 6.1., Should "For both SR Links and
> end-to-end measurement for SR-MPLS Policies" be changed to something like
> "For both SR Links and end-to-end SR-MPLS Policies measurements"?
>
>
> <RG> Corrected.
>
>
>     8.  In section 6.2., should something like a user case be added into
> the sentence "The Block Number TLV is Mandatory when used.."?
>
>
> <RG> Expanded the sentence.
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cc31debd982dd4f82aba208d80d3eae44%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637273910199487505&sdata=v46CNS9WsmAblNY5nj%2F7yd%2BdWh6sROXzJbDPtXcrTsc%3D&reserved=0>
>
>