Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Fri, 29 January 2016 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425C21B301F for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:54:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grYGV8nJ3NI5 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:54:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 279921B301C for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:54:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2748; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454028885; x=1455238485; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=u4zOePBhJWIMRYIY8gDi5smkrniv6in8uhbgI8tA7rs=; b=kxOVO3qdIeuIYugshpgTQou1YCkTS3lKiuUQ7GHxKUTETdP9QOrroJKz ryrhyviOJM+NWXHkzVlCU9AUeiQ0rcqSF7n6xtVyP7SeWuIH2gmZgvqSX 3B44I1DeS/37Qcnfk44l6jWdTSzRVXFxa6YUKKu+8uuDV/I/dbgj7F0p/ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,360,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="648876079"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jan 2016 00:54:42 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0T0sfRb024715 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:54:42 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:54:40 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:54:40 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Loa Andersson <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
Thread-Index: AQHRWi+i4aCoaj+USzqP2deJ9ymVRA==
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:54:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:54:47 -0000

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.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Loa Andersson []
>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
>To: Gregory Mirsky;;
>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.
>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
>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as the
>>next step.
>>                 Regards,
>>                                 Greg
>>mpls mailing list