Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping

[Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Greg,

I would be happy to strike the words “new protocol”. However, it might not be a good idea to replace those words with “a new way to use elements of LSP Ping”. If we were to do so, we might promote confusion regarding whether MPLS Self-ping extends LSP Ping.

Would you be OK if we replaced the words “new protocol” with “probing procedure”?

                                                                              Ron


From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:45 PM
To: Ronald Bonica; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping

Hi Ron, et. al,
if authors consider changing characterization of Self Ping solution from “the new protocol” to perhaps “the new way to use elements of the MPLS LSP Ping protocol”, then Informational track indeed becomes inevitable.

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:06 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Gregory Mirsky; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping



Works for me!

                   Ron


From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:01 AM
To: Ronald Bonica; 'Gregory Mirsky'; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping

Looks informational to me. And looks like 2119 language is appropriate.

Thanks,
Adrian

From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 12 March 2015 01:24
To: Gregory Mirsky; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping

Greg,

In the message below, you question whether draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping should be INFORMATIONAL or PS. In a similar vein, you ask whether RFC 2119 language should be used.

When I wrote the draft, I considered both, couldn’t decide, and tossed a coin ;-)

AFAIKS, the IETFs criteria for PS are a bit fuzzy. You might argue that the draft should be PS because it defines “bits on the wire”. But on the other hand, you might argue that it doesn’t need to be PS because:


-          It doesn’t address interoperability requirements (because the sender and receiver are the same node)

-          It doesn’t request any IANA assignments

I would be very happy to let somebody else decide whether the draft should be INFORMATIONAL or PS. Maybe the chairs or ADs can offer an opinion?

                                                                                                   Ron



From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:02 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping

Dear All,
I've been assigned to review draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping.
The document is very well written, the problem in focus is clearly stated, and the proposed solution well described.
I do have a number of concerns with the status of the document and the approach as presented:
•         document intended track is Informational even though the solution being positioned as "new, light-weight protocol". If this is indeed new protocol or even extension of the existing one, then I expect there must be requests to IANA allocations. At this time "This document makes no request of IANA." Either LSP Self-ping can be characterized through re-use of already existing protocols and approaches, or document should be switched to Standards track;