Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)
Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Thu, 08 October 2015 02:26 UTC
Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420181B2DB9; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 35TGBh_NsuKf; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B50591B2E09; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BYM47585; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:26:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 03:26:34 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.229]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:26:30 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQ+6NP+IE2Gi+fpESyfG7P6Yr9bZ5g6W3w
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:26:30 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B60A6FF@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <20150930171304.12864.30445.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150930171304.12864.30445.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_HEMmu6zHyX96urvEG04nAQ-x04>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org>, "rcallon@juniper.net" <rcallon@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:26:43 -0000
Hi Alvaro, Thanks for your comments, as your suggested, we will add a paragraph to section 3.1, hope this addresses your comments. Specific to section 5.1 of [RFC7110], this document updates the first sentence as follows: o When sending an echo request, in addition to the rules and procedures defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC4379], the Reply Mode of the echo request MUST be set to "Reply via Specified Path", and a Reply Path TLV SHOULD be carried in the echo request message correspondingly; if the Reply Path TLV is not carried, then it indicates the reverse LSP as the reply path. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 1:13 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: mpls@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org; > mpls-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org; rcallon@juniper.net > Subject: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT) > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support the publication, but I would like to see the update to RFC7110 clearly > indicated — specially because the change modifies a “MUST” > behavior. > > Section 3.1. (Reply via Specified Path Update) says that the "usage of the > "Reply via Specified Path (5)" without inclusion of a "Reply Path TLV" is no > longer invalid” — but "Reply via Specified Path (5)” (that specific string of text) > doesn’t show up in RFC7110, nor does the word invalid. In digging a little bit, > I can see that Section 5.1. (Sending an Echo Request) of RFC7110 says: “When > sending an echo request…the Reply Mode of the echo request MUST be set to > "Reply via Specified Path", and a > Reply Path TLV MUST be carried…” In the end, I’m assuming that the > update to RFC7110 is to change that text in 5.1 to something like “…the TLV > SHOULD be carried; if it isn’t then it indicates the reverse LSP…”. > Please be clear. > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-… Mach Chen