Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 15 November 2013 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 15C0411E8171 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:39:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KwQT3ZgClu07 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [74.220.216.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AFB111E81A9 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 10789 invoked by uid 0); 15 Nov 2013 15:37:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2013 15:37:00 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=RsQJwjZ1j7t3X2MDK4EIgR1evlEAMwedX6xBg4RG+vE=; b=z/wNWnAV1isvVTnQrELKD8zDpYeDvrc5q/6otM6dDQbBCnZayrsSKizTy5VpZBaoMMlNsmJu0Md+QVv2bOqZ13pl0t+KMs42Kj/OHhABsjMKZ9KHBji6KqxCi86rktL8;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:37419 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1VhLS7-0007yo-Ti; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:37:00 -0700
Message-ID: <52863FA2.1070604@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:37:06 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Zhenlong Cui <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com>, mpls@ietf.org
References: <5260B904.2090802@pi.nu> <015a01cecf07$abeefcd0$03ccf670$@bx.jp.nec.com> <52771FCD.1030406@labn.net> <00c701ced93b$d04fed80$70efc880$@bx.jp.nec.com> <52794190.9060303@labn.net> <527D51B6.1060106@labn.net> <097b01cee12f$d1590df0$740b29d0$@bx.jp.nec.com> <5284F610.6050807@labn.net> <00a201cee1ac$3c2efd20$b48cf760$@bx.jp.nec.com>
In-Reply-To: <00a201cee1ac$3c2efd20$b48cf760$@bx.jp.nec.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:39:28 -0000

Zhenlong,

See below.  I've cut topics with resolutions/agreements.

On 11/14/2013 9:41 PM, Zhenlong Cui wrote:
> Loa,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. Please see below for responses in-line.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:11 AM
>> To: Zhenlong Cui; mpls@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
>>
>> Zhenlong,
>>
>> Thank you for the comments.
>>
>> Here are your comments, as extracted from word, and my responses.
>> (Clearly the page numbers are wrong.)
>>

[...]

>>
>>> Page 203: Inserted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM OAM Packets is sent to all
>>> leaves and processed by Page 203: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM
>>> every OAM packet Page 203: Comment [zc4] zc 11/14/2013 8:42:00 PM I
>>> think that's not necessarily true. Because some on-demand OAM
>> packets may be dropped
>>> by intermediate node. That mean not every OAM packet is sent to leaves.
>>> Page 203: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM is sent to all leaves, and
>>> thus can impact
>>
>> So your point is that an intermediate node may drop an OAM packet?  If so, yes, this is true for P2P case too.
>>
>> How about:
>> DROP (redundant statement):
>>   thus every OAM packet is sent to all leaves, s/can impact/may be processed by
> 
> My primary concern:
> I think there is a discrepancy between "every OAM packet is sent to
> all leaves" and "To address a packet to an intermediate node in the
> tree, TTL based ..."
> 
> My understanding:
>  "every OAM packet is sent to all leaves" is equal to "no OAM packet is sent to branches".
>  On the other hand, "To address a packet to an intermediate node in the tree, TTL based ...", it seems meaning that "the root may send OAM packet to branches".
> 
>  Is my understanding correct?
> 

Okay, I understand your point.  I think your reading / the text does not
match our intent.  (Which is certainly to allow for both MIP and MEP
processing.)

How about:
s/to all leaves/towards all leaves

Which will result in:
     All the traffic sent over a P2MP transport path, including
     OAM packets generated by a MEP, is sent (multicast) from the
     root towards all the leaves, and thus may be processed by all
     the MEs in a P2MP MEG.

[...]

> 
>>
>>> Page 307: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 7:24:00 PM and Page 307: Inserted zc
>>> 11/14/2013 7:24:00 PM or Page 307: Comment [zc11] zc 11/14/2013
>>> 8:02:00 PM It is correct?
>> How about:
>> s/and/and, perhaps,
> 
> s/and/and? Is this a mistake?
> My propose is s/and/or.
> 
> 

Sorry for not being clear.  I was proposing the following final text:
    Fault notification happens from the node
    identifying the fault to the root node and, perhaps, from the
    leaves to the root via an out of band path.

Now rereading the sentence I think I'd prefer just dropping the
reference to leaves as it really doesn't add anything.  How about:
      Fault notification happens from the node
      identifying the fault to the root node via an out of band path.

And also dropping "In either case" immediately following to align the
next sentence.

That's it.  Thank you again for your comments.

Lou

> Best regards,
> zhenlong
> 
[...]