Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Sun, 17 November 2013 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 6881A11E8D96 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 06:51:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 ILAS3-l+snEK for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 06:51:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy13-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy13-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.16.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2927111E8D3F for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 06:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11837 invoked by uid 0); 17 Nov 2013 14:50:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy13.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 17 Nov 2013 14:50:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From; bh=i6qcWo0pOb4taaTdz0BtkfQuAq0fQuT/PBidlzPhzu0=; b=UwXR/5BIGOKocoSxH8GW4KAOo5ZBfILrdPsbmdk0ZkTS8v4eLrpd2PbdKq24jQW22E/h8BeZ+Kp57IbZIEFLhHGxGITPiokRn/pRhrWFfjZot9PMUchMWLetsLzl/t90;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:46249 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Vi3gA-00030m-H8; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:50:26 -0700
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Zhenlong Cui <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com>, <mpls@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:50:25 -0500
Message-ID: <142668a5c88.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B713587@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <5260B904.2090802@pi.nu> <015a01cecf07$abeefcd0$03ccf670$@bx.jp.nec.com> <52771FCD.1030406@labn.net> <00c701ced93b$d04fed80$70efc880$@bx.jp.nec.com> <52794190.9060303@labn.net> <527D51B6.1060106@labn.net> <097b01cee12f$d1590df0$740b29d0$@bx.jp.nec.com> <5284F610.6050807@labn.net> <00a201cee1ac$3c2efd20$b48cf760$@bx.jp.nec.com> <52863FA2.1070604@labn.net> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B713587@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 AquaMail/1.2.5.10 (build: 2100360)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:51:15 -0000

I always found this term a bit counterintuitive so am happy that it has 
received limited use....

Lou


On November 15, 2013 4:50:37 PM Gregory Mirsky 
<gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>; wrote:
> Hi Lou, et. al,
> though it might be not canonical but often "node that is both leaf and 
> branch node" referred as "bud node".
>
> 	Regards,
> 		Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou 
> Berger
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:37 AM
> To: Zhenlong Cui; mpls@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on 
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
>
>
> Zhenlong,
>
> See below.  I've cut topics with resolutions/agreements.
>
> On 11/14/2013 9:41 PM, Zhenlong Cui wrote:
> > Loa,
> > Thank you for your reply. Please see below for responses in-line.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> >> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:11 AM
> >> To: Zhenlong Cui; mpls@ietf.org
> >> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on 
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
> >>
> >> Zhenlong,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the comments.
> >>
> >> Here are your comments, as extracted from word, and my responses.
> >> (Clearly the page numbers are wrong.)
> >>
>
> [...]
>
> >>
> >>> Page 203: Inserted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM OAM Packets is sent to all 
> leaves and processed by Page 203: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM every 
> OAM packet Page 203: Comment [zc4] zc 11/14/2013 8:42:00 PM I think that's 
> not necessarily true. Because some on-demand OAM
> >> packets may be dropped
> >>> by intermediate node. That mean not every OAM packet is sent to leaves.
> >>> Page 203: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM is sent to all leaves, and 
> thus can impact
> >>
> >> So your point is that an intermediate node may drop an OAM packet?  If 
> so, yes, this is true for P2P case too.
> >>
> >> How about:
> >> DROP (redundant statement):
> >>   thus every OAM packet is sent to all leaves, s/can impact/may be >> 
> processed by
> > My primary concern:
> > I think there is a discrepancy between "every OAM packet is sent to all 
> leaves" and "To address a packet to an intermediate node in the tree, TTL 
> based ..."
> > My understanding:
> >  "every OAM packet is sent to all leaves" is equal to "no OAM packet is 
> sent to branches".
> >  On the other hand, "To address a packet to an intermediate node in the 
> tree, TTL based ...", it seems meaning that "the root may send OAM packet 
> to branches".
> >  Is my understanding correct?
> >
> Okay, I understand your point.  I think your reading / the text does not 
> match our intent.  (Which is certainly to allow for both MIP and MEP
> processing.)
>
> How about:
> s/to all leaves/towards all leaves
>
> Which will result in:
>      All the traffic sent over a P2MP transport path, including
>      OAM packets generated by a MEP, is sent (multicast) from the
>      root towards all the leaves, and thus may be processed by all
>      the MEs in a P2MP MEG.
>
> [...]
>
> > >>
> >>> Page 307: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 7:24:00 PM and Page 307: Inserted zc
> >>> 11/14/2013 7:24:00 PM or Page 307: Comment [zc11] zc 11/14/2013
> >>> 8:02:00 PM It is correct?
> >> How about:
> >> s/and/and, perhaps,
> > s/and/and? Is this a mistake?
> > My propose is s/and/or.
> >
>
> Sorry for not being clear.  I was proposing the following final text:
>     Fault notification happens from the node
>     identifying the fault to the root node and, perhaps, from the
>     leaves to the root via an out of band path.
>
> Now rereading the sentence I think I'd prefer just dropping the reference 
> to leaves as it really doesn't add anything.  How about:
>       Fault notification happens from the node
>       identifying the fault to the root node via an out of band path.
>
> And also dropping "In either case" immediately following to align the next 
> sentence.
>
> That's it.  Thank you again for your comments.
>
> Lou
>
> > Best regards,
> > zhenlong
> > [...]
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>