Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg, 
That sounds like a good plan.
Thanks,
Acee

On 1/30/16, 8:36 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>thank you for your thorough review and OSPF insights.
>I've updated reference to RFC 7684 in the new -01 version.
>When we were starting work on RTM we intended to address LDP signaled
>IP/MPLS networks as well and that, as I recall, was the reason to use
>more generic IGP TLVs rather than TE-specific. Since LDP drifted out of
>scope, I agree, use of TE advertisements is more suitable. We'll work on
>that and share new update with you and the IGP WGs.
>
>	Regards,
>		Greg
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:55 PM
>To: Loa Andersson
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
>
>I’ve read the subject draft and think it offers a useful function to
>facilitate more accurate time synchronization in NTP/PTP deployments. One
>question I have is why the capability is signaled in the generic IGP TLV
>LSAs and LSPs rather than the TE advertisements when the document is
>scoped to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] LSPs? One reason I ask is that we are waiting
>on implementations of the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs draft. Having said that,
>OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have separate registry for the TLV LSAs and section 8
>should reflect this. Also, OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes is now RFC 7684.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
>>To: Gregory Mirsky; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>Cc: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
>>Working Group and authors, <chair hat off> As a matter of fact I
>>believe this document should be progressed.
>><chair hat on>
>>This draft has been a working group document since early August, but
>>there has been no discussion on the document on the wg mailing list.
>>There are of course two ways if interpreting this.
>>- there is total agreement on the draft
>>- there is no intrest in the draft
>>I have no basis to decide which is the case.
>>Can we plese have at least a few (non-author) comments on the mailing
>>list if it is time to start the wglc.
>>/Loa
>>mpls wg co-chair
>>On 2015-12-15 07:21, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>>Dear Chairs of the MPLS WG,
>>>authors of the Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Network draft
>>>believe that all comments received during the WG adoption call been
>>>addressed.
>>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as the
>>>next step.
>>>                 Regards,
>>>                                 Greg
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>mpls mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls