[mpls] Question on scope of draft-frost-mpls-loss-delay-00

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 20 December 2010 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30DBA3A69CB; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:33:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.578, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tgRfg2ewPQCe; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D9B3A69BF; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so3339745qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:34:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6d0TCaiCSnPbjhHRsld1WRU6PzhSfuURUOStq5IFl90=; b=vzLeyI3Yyhwi+NMTbsYTEm+4Xq7td4Uxd1E6gSZD0pObIZf07NgkR18tTR6InKadIN XNcEmy9HdOmCUSELXT9nEjrdcabakr3/0G05/ZJdtPF6krjUUffuRSOsFpLLxS4zy2Ks BfmQ8+pH72PdJqjSicsOaBinRii6AYSTpZz14=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=fM573s/JbzM9q6jN9uxL5y6qk+etK5YE5wyYSOWPo+DilJTOWNlldNcUWj9NlTbH8G 4nZkES+cMXmwDLGR6jBrSrPscATflt0LV7ocUIz60Ywy3lZuaOS+HGCFI+C4hQxpp85Q rcWm9h+iqgmQE2oadIFQlZdn2WKtg7fxWKWrQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.75.10 with SMTP id w10mr3345852qcj.109.1292816091764; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.187.6 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:34:51 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimOe8veJW_RK6ZJfkaqXPrA1Szo=0Vtaj0w5iwR@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: Dan Frost <danfrost@cisco.com>, stbryant@cisco.com, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016364ee0f8e8d79d0497cf336f"
Subject: [mpls] Question on scope of draft-frost-mpls-loss-delay-00
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:33:00 -0000

Dear Dan and Stewart,
bullet two in Introduction and Section 2.7.1 Type of Channels list only link
(section, LSP or a PW as channels over which LM and DM could be conducted.
But the Section 2.7.4 Intermediate Nodes describes operation of LM and DM by
using TTL exception method. Though LM and DM operation does not
differentiate whether querier and addressee are MEP or MIP reference to use
of TTL implies to LM/DM directed at MIP. I view it as case of Segment. Do
you see that querier might be MIP as well or LM/DM on generic Segment can be
performed only with SPME?

Regards,
Greg