IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 10 June 2020 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
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 A44583A083B; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 J7ulK_gQkFmt; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3D7D3A084C; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id a9so2366617ljn.6; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EBhFr+NTQlnY0f97RpQBxAp2OPP/Oz7Gd7caYo+9mOg=; b=TadblAWAZGE3xHgK2M3ffikUbQ7/k4g+XfrMEHiKFBkNDP+J92heiL4TIdCIWkiWpu 3kRlFWn+YXUxr5I4rfLZN6hdgkiGwkrrvsMW0Sl7qz/IdDuRG41sGGhjOI8NP8HXsMBG iTxZ+C1/P6L3S5/WbwtyoZ+wZpnBcl2q9nov698KKXeGlDsVpY2ShRbP+5Nbed3Gb2TB rLgP5L+/BVOlYvIRHEhQ1aoWMieozXxxJqoSgMLpAJSJlfUp2ejOxuAdAFZef3pojM57 S6A6BqgKsUUSfQaXwgeFffmPep6uVACOusN3OC38+p84RUmjBs6hIRX4iIC8phrw8C0L 2dkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EBhFr+NTQlnY0f97RpQBxAp2OPP/Oz7Gd7caYo+9mOg=; b=E7gVu6TIXBAZEpZADl5gup17ozTvHRrJr2/MIHPdd5FbY7dSW+H6L+XXITw6lWp0Ks fFcx3BN81kbL84d+zr2eRNw8BRVq0/kLdhqItaGHVrg8sHmT+BI83QzadiAUoAIdschs 6hfuzgxZKsrogPlissCX+wx8N7XErXesgAXwM1XuPqjbPhSrpOZVlt92WV5aOlHhEaTf p0HJHzVwuLtAr4yFkZF+nUe/AspkRhah7jVpJgBpkvVVw9XmDRdl39Zt3hYa1WCo84Si oToHrp7UAKvAEOV8MUjkyXSAGIhCuYSlW0d03gqESZj3xQea0hiq80SN3BMzyjyU0MI2 0URQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531S6DDv0VBTadnRaARitEo7bd+iPMbyrzoHblTjO95NRZ5H5B/L xLS5Hv+3/5aLvR75rUx7vxOmk/bgaoVQU4etiQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyg/9Ehj8tEEM7SzcP81/OOW5G9xy6fsnNw7/Frg/JF2Y33GqNhwJTrG9BkhW79SpwTdSh9wNR1dkaC61SjDSo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:112e:: with SMTP id e14mr1630809ljo.338.1591794211584; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CH2PR19MB40241A395AAD7976CD74FE11FCA40@CH2PR19MB4024.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR13MB3117086E43C785B4A327D942F2820@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB3117086E43C785B4A327D942F2820@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:03:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6ewhjakQYhdrh-_EH1Tr8exczygkK_xxaj5YdG570ihfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org" <draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="00000000000089ffd805a7ba7873"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Yg2mYi-BRnlTEgz5Qv_Ijd5JEP0>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:03:43 -0000

Thank you Huaimo for the detailed review and your support for the adoption.
Attached please find the updated document and diffs that address your
comments.
Please see responses inline with <RG>..

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:52 PM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>     I have reviewed the document and have the following comments.
>
>     1.  The document is useful and technically sound. It can be considered
> for WG adoption.
>

<RG> Thank you.

>
>     2.  The document seems talking about the Loss Measurement Message
> and Delay Measurement Message. Should it have some texts for Combined
> Loss/Delay Measurement Message?
>

<RG> Added section 6.3.

>
>     3.  There are a couple of IETF drafts about SR P2MP Path.. The
> document just mentions one of them and the Performance Measurement for a SR
> P2MP Path (or policy) is based on this one draft. Should the Performance
> Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or policy) be general enough for all?
>
> <RG> do you have a specific P2MP draft on mind that should also be
included in the example?


>     4.  It seems that the Performance Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or
> policy) is limited to one way and out-of-band. Should the document add some
> texts talking about these limitations?
>

<RG> Updated section 7.

>
>     5.  The registry for the newly defined Return Path TLV Type and Block
> Number TLV Type is missing in the document. Is it the "MPLS Loss/Delay
> Measurement TLV Object" registry?
>

<RG> Updated IANA section.

>
>     6.  It seems that a new registry should be defined for the Sub-TLV
> types under the Return Path TLV in the document.
>

<RG> Added in IANA section.


>     7.  In section 5.1. and section 6.1., Should "For both SR Links and
> end-to-end measurement for SR-MPLS Policies" be changed to something like
> "For both SR Links and end-to-end SR-MPLS Policies measurements"?
>

<RG> Corrected.

>
>     8.  In section 6.2., should something like a user case be added into
> the sentence "The Block Number TLV is Mandatory when used.."?
>

<RG> Expanded the sentence.

Thanks,
Rakesh


>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email