IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers

George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Fri, 08 July 2011 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <swallow@cisco.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 D2C6B21F8AA0 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 06:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dKr0XPV9cjsC for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3111D21F86D6 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=swallow@cisco.com; l=8025; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310132275; x=1311341875; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=eW+zwhBcjJZA+wJ8TaVfjklQXwh9iGh+F0m8CSsgrOo=; b=iZZNI9BYuJLeCM1haWXAw9RGbAd93Su0+LS5f3L6q/homd+pjvzke8rB UYW5B4xeBdZETbhqwuXwOlAgewK11HsaRZPkhnDo6mWkK3cTfDFPCfSJG ycvjrnmqX0xHCFlvTOLAHJsbdJosaOOUGcFsK0DLkUiNeCwnn2m0eizmt k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvUAAKkHF06tJV2b/2dsb2JhbABSglGVPY5TZHeIe6RwnX6GOASHHYsvhQaLWg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,499,1304294400"; d="scan'208,217";a="1041863"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2011 13:37:54 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p68Dbs3G000785; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:37:54 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-106.cisco.com ([72.163.62.148]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:37:54 -0500
Received: from 10.86.244.217 ([10.86.244.217]) by XMB-RCD-106.cisco.com ([72.163.62.148]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:37:54 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.29.0.110113
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:37:52 -0400
From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers@tools.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CA3C8070.11822%swallow@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers
Thread-Index: Acw1Epl1e9a+4No9S6KI0ZM/JsUxMgDCed0tATSftOAAIU8V8Q==
In-Reply-To: <FE60A4E52763E84B935532D7D9294FF121F4B63C26@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3392962673_160475616"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2011 13:37:54.0183 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D5BD170:01CC3D74]
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers
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, 08 Jul 2011 13:37:57 -0000

Thanks,  I¹ll fix that.

...George


On 7/7/11 5:58 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi George,
> I have a question to new Section MEP-ID. In MPLS-TP a Section can be either
> physical link or logical, section layer LSP, link. I think that listed Section
> MEP_ID addresses the former case. Would Section MEP-ID in the latter case be
> the LSP MEP-ID? I think that both cases must be identified and their Section
> MEP-IDs listed.
>  
>     Regards,
>         Greg
> 
> 
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George
> Swallow
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 11:27 AM
> To: Adrian Farrel; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers
> 
> Adrian -
> 
> 
> On 6/27/11 5:38 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have done my AD review of this document.  In view of the fact that my
>> comments
>> are quite small, could you please  handle them as part of the IETF last call
>> which I will start  forthwith.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>> 
>> ---
>>   
>> You seem to  be missing a section on MEP_IDs for MPLS_TP Sections.
>> Insert before  7.2.1?
>> 
> Added the following section:
> 
> 7.2.1.  MPLS-TP Section MEP_IDs
> 
>    IP compatible MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP are simply the IF_IDs of each end
>    of the section.  For example, for a section whose MEG_ID is
> 
>       A1-IF_ID::Z9-IF_ID
> 
>    the Section MEP_ID at A1 would be
> 
>       A1-IF_ID
> 
>    and the Section MEP_ID at Z9 would be
> 
>       Z9-IF_ID.
> 
>    Where the Section MEP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is
>    accomplished by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above.
>    Thus a globally unique Section MEP_ID becomes
> 
>       Global_ID::IF_ID.
> 
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Nits
>> 
>> 1.3
>> 
>> OLD
>> The  notation does define a preferred ordering of the fields.
>> NEW
>> The  notation defines a preferred ordering of the  fields.
>> END
>> 
> Done.
>> 
>> OLD
>>  Z9 is used to indicated  the
>> NEW
>>  Z9 is used to indicate the
>> END
>> 
> Done.
> 
> ...George
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls  mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email