Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,
you've likely noticed very interesting discussion of RTM applicability in Segment Routing environment. We'll be studying this use case and start a new draft. But the SPRING use case of RTM, in my view, justifies already proposed in the document IGP TLV extensions.
What do you think about RTM in SPRING case? Would you agree to the proposed IGP extensions?

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 4:51 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Loa Andersson
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

Hi Greg,
That sounds like a good plan.
Thanks,
Acee

On 1/30/16, 8:36 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>thank you for your thorough review and OSPF insights.
>I've updated reference to RFC 7684 in the new -01 version.
>When we were starting work on RTM we intended to address LDP signaled 
>IP/MPLS networks as well and that, as I recall, was the reason to use 
>more generic IGP TLVs rather than TE-specific. Since LDP drifted out of 
>scope, I agree, use of TE advertisements is more suitable. We'll work 
>on that and share new update with you and the IGP WGs.
>
>	Regards,
>		Greg
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem 
>(acee)
>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:55 PM
>To: Loa Andersson
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
>
>I’ve read the subject draft and think it offers a useful function to 
>facilitate more accurate time synchronization in NTP/PTP deployments. 
>One question I have is why the capability is signaled in the generic 
>IGP TLV LSAs and LSPs rather than the TE advertisements when the 
>document is scoped to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] LSPs? One reason I ask is that 
>we are waiting on implementations of the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs draft. 
>Having said that,
>OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have separate registry for the TLV LSAs and section 8 
>should reflect this. Also, OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes is now RFC 7684.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
>>To: Gregory Mirsky; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>Cc: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft 
>>Working Group and authors, <chair hat off> As a matter of fact I 
>>believe this document should be progressed.
>><chair hat on>
>>This draft has been a working group document since early August, but 
>>there has been no discussion on the document on the wg mailing list.
>>There are of course two ways if interpreting this.
>>- there is total agreement on the draft
>>- there is no intrest in the draft
>>I have no basis to decide which is the case.
>>Can we plese have at least a few (non-author) comments on the mailing 
>>list if it is time to start the wglc.
>>/Loa
>>mpls wg co-chair
>>On 2015-12-15 07:21, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>>Dear Chairs of the MPLS WG,
>>>authors of the Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Network draft 
>>>believe that all comments received during the WG adoption call been 
>>>addressed.
>>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as 
>>>the next step.
>>>                 Regards,
>>>                                 Greg 
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>mpls mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls