Re: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

[Rolf Winter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

thanks. What's with the other two points. Would you accept these as resolutions/answers to your comments?

Best,

Rolf

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Dienstag, 6. November 2012 18:22
> To: Rolf Winter; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> 
> Hi Rolf,
> 802.1ag differentiates as Up or Down both MEP and MIP Half Function
> (MHF). I assume that Y.1731 is not different (not much different).
> 
>         Regards,
>                 Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf Winter [mailto:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:52 PM
> To: Gregory Mirsky; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> thanks for the comments. Some relies inline.
> 
> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
> London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
> 
> 
> > *     Section 3
> >
> > *     Note that RFC 6371 refers to per-interface MEP as Up and Down
> > (Section 3.3, p.15) whereas in this document per-interface MIPs
> > referred as in- and out-. I think that both types of Maintanence
> > Points
> > (MP) must use one terminology in regard to location in per-interface
> > model.
> 
> I see your point. But I think you could argue this two ways. I
> personally liked in- and out-MIP as it illustrates the point of MIPs
> being transit points and therefore somewhat different in nature. RFC
> 6371 does talk about per-interface MIPs but does not name them in any
> way, which I found strange at first. Can someone involved in the ITU-T
> (or IEEE for that matter) maybe comment on terminology here. Up/Down
> MEP is a commonly used term, but how about per interface-MIPs?
> 
> >
> > *     Section 4.
> >
> > *     I believe that CV operation can be performed only between MEPs,
> > not between MEP and MIP, as stated in the document.
> 
> Would qualifying it as on-demand CV work for you?
> 
> > *     I think that "diagnostic tests" is bit too open-ended and would
> > suggest considering making this bullet more specific or removing it
> > altogether.
> 
> This is a term taken from 5860 - the OAM requirements. I agree that a
> number of more specific OAM functions fall into the category of
> diagnostic test, but using the term should be fine give that it has
> been used already in RFCs. Would you agree?
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Rolf
> 
> >
> >
> >         Regards,
> >                 Greg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > <mailto:mpls- [e-mail] <mailto:mpls- [e-mail]> > ] On
> > Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:51 AM
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> > Subject: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> >
> > Working Group,
> >
> > the authors of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map have indicated that the
> > draft is ready for working group last call.
> >
> > Before we start the working group last call an IPT poll is needed.
> >
> > This is to start the IPR Poll.
> >
> > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-
> > map?
> >
> > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
> > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> >
> > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
> > to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any
> > relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the MPLS wg mailing
> > list. The documents will not advance to the next stage until a
> > response has been received from each author and contributor.
> >
> > If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author
> > or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
> > of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
> rules.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Loa
> > (as MPLS WG co-chair)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                         email:
> [e-mail]
> > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> >                                               [phone]
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls> >
> >
>