IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 16 April 2015 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6682C1B2EF4 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 ijcJeweOimBL for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132FE1B2EBD for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3GIA6f4022004; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:10:06 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3GIA3Mt021992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:10:05 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'t.petch'" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, 'Nobo Akiya' <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>, 'Ross Callon' <rcallon@juniper.net>
References: <BY1PR0501MB14303A3E86F750CF628B7234A50E0@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BY1PR0501MB143031F1768A8854BA4CB30EA5E70@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAFqGwGuKaR-pRiCS9hnzD0mGmY1dRWd2LANgaBf4MJdT+MYRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <001901d0786b$0c1ceb40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <001901d0786b$0c1ceb40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:10:06 +0100
Message-ID: <039601d07870$93441fd0$b9cc5f70$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQPgMp+F85EfvPJp+pmFDDXz24DS/gHDk72sAiR8PsAB8lbRg5kBqJLA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21482.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--0.992-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--0.992-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 5+1rHnqhWUTMy6K24fisq/HkpkyUphL9McUnpY8JAof87i5L+UKVgkHq 72dazUUafeul6Dnab9DW5noeYys7ZYT3OBUyTele7spMO3HwKCA6QNs2WCY79Xz6vt8n2NeAo8W MkQWv6iV95l0nVeyiuBQF+BLVItD4C24oEZ6SpSmcfuxsiY4QFCnuhr/brEYTBY+HEQjrM82BVg nppaA9/djcuw7oJW82R9geeVePX1aHx/3593XRE+S+ZTuCPZ+tPifujgI13dqh071fQj6NysC+k sT6a9fy
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/PQ8U8lHKd37FOYWGTIKmjuL-MFo>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] end of WGLC, RE: working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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, 16 Apr 2015 18:10:12 -0000

Tom captures my point.

> I was struck by Adrian's comment which, if I understand correctly, was
> what to do if a MUST or SHOULD is violated and as I see it, I am unclear
> if this was addressed.
> 
> Thus 3.2 2) what should a recipient do when the echo reply does contain
> a Reply Mode Order TLV ?
> 
> Or in 6), 'SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values' - when may
> that SHOULD be violated and if it is, does that render the TLV not valid
> as described in 4?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email