Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-03.txt

Hi Lou,
greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments. We updated the draft and uploaded it as -04. Please find more details in-line and tagged GIM>>.
Hope we're converging and are really close to completely address your very helpful comments.

	Best regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 3:45 AM
To: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-03.txt

 Greg,

Thanks for the changes. I have some  comments on this version:

- I don't think the role of rro is clear in this rev. It references hop count in the narrative, but then has no associated required processing.  I read it as vestigial text that can be dropped, but perhaps not. Either way this should  be clarified.
GIM>> Added the following sentence towards end of Section 4.6:
	The calculated  value is used by the LSR as TTL value in outgoing label to reach the  next RTM capable LSR on the LSP.

- given that the  RTM_SET Sub-object is no longer carried in the rro, I think it would be clearer to align the name with other LSP attribute TLVs. 
(See
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml)
. So perhaps RTM_SET TLV and simply RTM_SET for short (and in place of RRSO)?
GIM>> Thank you, accepted and changed text accordingly.

- The last paragraph of 4.7 needs to be updated to reflect that there isn't a new object being introduced and that RTM_SET is carried as an attribute tlv.
GIM>> Done.

- there are no processing rules for RTM_SET sub-TLVs.
GIM>> That is very good point. In reviewing processing of RTM_SET sub-TLVs we agreed that duplicate sub-TLV is indication of misbehaving LSR and cannot be interpreted. Hence we propose to interrupt signaling LSP and generate PathErr with new Error Code. Once decided that we updated processing of duplicate RTM_SET TLV to behave in the similar manner, generate PathErr with distinct new Error Code. Updated IANA Consideration section accordingly to request two new Error Codes.

That's it.

Thanks,
Lou

On February 12, 2016 11:47:43 AM internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network
>         Authors         : Greg Mirsky
>                           Stefano Ruffini
>                           Eric Gray
>                           John Drake
>                           Stewart Bryant
>                           Alexander Vainshtein
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 25
> 	Date            : 2016-02-12
>
> Abstract:
>    This document specifies G-ACh based Residence Time Measurement and
>    how it can be used by time synchronization protocols being
>    transported over MPLS domain.
>
>    Residence time is the variable part of propagation delay of timing
>    and synchronization messages and knowing what this delay is for each
>    message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be
>    taken into account in applying the value included in a PTP event
>    message.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-03
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-03
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>