Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-08.txt> (Per-Interface MIP Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations) to Informational RFC
"Vivek Kumar" <kvivek@broadcom.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 10:54 UTC
Return-Path: <kvivek@broadcom.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 9375A11E817A; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 FGVg7ZOriMhF; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mms2.broadcom.com (mms2.broadcom.com [216.31.210.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9519711E8177; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.9.208.55] by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.5)); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:48:36 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: 4500596E-606A-40F9-852D-14843D8201B2
Received: from SJEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.203.14) by IRVEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.208.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.438.0; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:54:40 -0700
Received: from SJEXCHMB09.corp.ad.broadcom.com ( [fe80::3da7:665e:cc78:181f]) by SJEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com ( [::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:54:40 -0700
From: Vivek Kumar <kvivek@broadcom.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-08.txt> (Per-Interface MIP Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHOjdNux/GOoGjWDU6B2XZkLqx4o5l+md1Q
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:54:39 +0000
Message-ID: <3C086BA39C55B9418AE8FEA3F3EFDEC42AE28738@SJEXCHMB09.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <20130731094847.1312.52261.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130731094847.1312.52261.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.16.203.100]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-WSS-ID: 7DE6340E1R070934870-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-08.txt> (Per-Interface MIP Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations) to Informational RFC
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:54:56 -0000
Hi Authors, In the terminology section ( section 3) of draft , the in-mip and out-mip are defined using forwarding engine as reference . But the term forwarding engine has not been explained in terminology section. Since the forwarding engine ( FW) is used in all the diagram in the draft , I feel it will be helpful if you could add some description in terminology section to state what does the forwarding engine means here . Regards, Vivek -----Original Message----- From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:19 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-08.txt> (Per-Interface MIP Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Per-Interface MIP Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations' <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-08.txt> as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-08-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes how Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) may be situated within network nodes at the incoming and outgoing interfaces. This document elaborates on important considerations for internal MIP addressing. More precisely it describes important restrictions for any mechanism that specifies a way of forming OAM messages so that they can be targeted at MIPs on incoming or MIPs on outgoing interfaces and forwarded correctly through the forwarding engine. Furthermore, the document includes considerations for node implementations where there is no distinction between the incoming and outgoing MIP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls