IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02

Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Thu, 21 August 2014 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <rcallon@juniper.net>
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 1E28E1A0AD0 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Z56So9RpEJwO for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0205.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBAEB1A0ACA for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO2PR05MB634.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.17) by CO2PR05MB954.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.198.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1005.10; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:25:59 +0000
Received: from CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.24) by CO2PR05MB634.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1005.10; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:25:57 +0000
Received: from CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.199.24]) by CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.199.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1010.016; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:25:57 +0000
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>, Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02
Thread-Index: Ac+8ilRUv/hpET0IRlGIeWYgr95o5AAYLqOAACVdzQAAAXtjAA==
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:25:56 +0000
Message-ID: <a994da1eb2fc405aa508382b54eb8917@CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e4da58f21f34427686e7385f90354ec1@CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <E840F3E3-457A-4E9F-B4D4-2163BAC344C4@gmail.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3B4453@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3B4453@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0310C78181
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(24454002)(41574002)(189002)(164054003)(377454003)(199003)(101416001)(76576001)(79102001)(81342001)(80022001)(76176999)(99396002)(81542001)(21056001)(77982001)(108616004)(90102001)(15202345003)(85306004)(64706001)(20776003)(66066001)(46102001)(74316001)(16236675004)(54356999)(2656002)(107046002)(74502001)(105586002)(99286002)(15975445006)(95666004)(87936001)(230783001)(19617315012)(83072002)(19609705001)(92566001)(74662001)(85852003)(19580395003)(76482001)(19625215002)(83322001)(31966008)(50986999)(106356001)(33646002)(19300405004)(18717965001)(86362001)(19580405001)(4396001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR05MB634; H:CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a994da1eb2fc405aa508382b54eb8917CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_NtBokPVYiUfyLhnTCHB8OiKqkw
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02
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: <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: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:26:05 -0000

Oops, my apology. Yes, the poll for adoption is on version -03.

Thanks, Ross

From: Nobo Akiya (nobo) [mailto:nobo@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:43 PM
To: Sam Aldrin; Ross Callon
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02

Hi Sam,

>> 1. Provide an example with specific type of LSP and FEC type where is useful and also why existing RFC's couldn't solve it.

The title of this WG adoption poll may have created some confusion. The latest version of this document is -03.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03

The latest version has Appendix A which was added as result of your comments.

>> 2. Details on how this draft will reduce 'false failures', given that every device has to support these new TLV's.

The extension itself is backwards compatible (i.e. adds an optional TLV), but benefit can obviously be achieved when corresponding LSRs support the extension. If there are one or more LSRs not supporting this extension, then it is no worse than today.

Thanks!

-Nobo

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam Aldrin
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:53 PM
To: Ross Callon
Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02

Hi Ross, et al,

I have discussed over the mailing alias why I do not support this draft in the current form.
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg12403.html>
Authors and I could not converge to agreed conclusion.

Here are things I would like to see in the draft

1. Provide an example with specific type of LSP and FEC type where is useful and also why existing RFC's couldn't solve it.
2. Details on how this draft will reduce 'false failures', given that every device has to support these new TLV's.

As it was discussed in detail already over the mailing list, need to see the benefits for these extensions.
My point is, if problem is solved already with existing mechanisms, there is no need to solve with different method. We use that argument many times in the WG/IETF.
But if it is indeed solving something which couldn't be solved thus far (I haven't seen it yet), you will have my support.

cheers
-sam

On Aug 20, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net<mailto:rcallon@juniper.net>> wrote:

This is to start a two week poll on adopting draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02
as an MPLS working group document.

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working group
mailing list (mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>).

This poll will end Thursday September 4, 2014.

Thanks, Ross

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email