Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework

["Zhenlong Cui" <[e-mail]>]

Lou,

Thank you for your reply, this resolves all my comments.

Best regards,
zhenlong

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 11:50 PM
> To: Gregory Mirsky; Zhenlong Cui; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
> 
> I always found this term a bit counterintuitive so am happy that it has received limited use....
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
> On November 15, 2013 4:50:37 PM Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Lou, et. al,
> > though it might be not canonical but often "node that is both leaf and
> > branch node" referred as "bud node".
> >
> > 	Regards,
> > 		Greg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Lou Berger
> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:37 AM
> > To: Zhenlong Cui; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on
> > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
> >
> >
> > Zhenlong,
> >
> > See below.  I've cut topics with resolutions/agreements.
> >
> > On 11/14/2013 9:41 PM, Zhenlong Cui wrote:
> > > Loa,
> > > Thank you for your reply. Please see below for responses in-line.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > >> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:11 AM
> > >> To: Zhenlong Cui; [e-mail]
> > >> Cc: [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on
> > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
> > >>
> > >> Zhenlong,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for the comments.
> > >>
> > >> Here are your comments, as extracted from word, and my responses.
> > >> (Clearly the page numbers are wrong.)
> > >>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >>
> > >>> Page 203: Inserted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM OAM Packets is sent to
> > >>> all
> > leaves and processed by Page 203: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM
> > every OAM packet Page 203: Comment [zc4] zc 11/14/2013 8:42:00 PM I
> > think that's not necessarily true. Because some on-demand OAM
> > >> packets may be dropped
> > >>> by intermediate node. That mean not every OAM packet is sent to leaves.
> > >>> Page 203: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 6:29:00 PM is sent to all leaves,
> > >>> and
> > thus can impact
> > >>
> > >> So your point is that an intermediate node may drop an OAM packet?
> > >> If
> > so, yes, this is true for P2P case too.
> > >>
> > >> How about:
> > >> DROP (redundant statement):
> > >>   thus every OAM packet is sent to all leaves, s/can impact/may be
> > >> >>
> > processed by
> > > My primary concern:
> > > I think there is a discrepancy between "every OAM packet is sent to
> > > all
> > leaves" and "To address a packet to an intermediate node in the tree,
> > TTL based ..."
> > > My understanding:
> > >  "every OAM packet is sent to all leaves" is equal to "no OAM packet
> > > is
> > sent to branches".
> > >  On the other hand, "To address a packet to an intermediate node in
> > > the
> > tree, TTL based ...", it seems meaning that "the root may send OAM
> > packet to branches".
> > >  Is my understanding correct?
> > >
> > Okay, I understand your point.  I think your reading / the text does
> > not match our intent.  (Which is certainly to allow for both MIP and
> > MEP
> > processing.)
> >
> > How about:
> > s/to all leaves/towards all leaves
> >
> > Which will result in:
> >      All the traffic sent over a P2MP transport path, including
> >      OAM packets generated by a MEP, is sent (multicast) from the
> >      root towards all the leaves, and thus may be processed by all
> >      the MEs in a P2MP MEG.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >>
> > >>> Page 307: Deleted zc 11/14/2013 7:24:00 PM and Page 307: Inserted
> > >>> zc
> > >>> 11/14/2013 7:24:00 PM or Page 307: Comment [zc11] zc 11/14/2013
> > >>> 8:02:00 PM It is correct?
> > >> How about:
> > >> s/and/and, perhaps,
> > > s/and/and? Is this a mistake?
> > > My propose is s/and/or.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry for not being clear.  I was proposing the following final text:
> >     Fault notification happens from the node
> >     identifying the fault to the root node and, perhaps, from the
> >     leaves to the root via an out of band path.
> >
> > Now rereading the sentence I think I'd prefer just dropping the
> > reference to leaves as it really doesn't add anything.  How about:
> >       Fault notification happens from the node
> >       identifying the fault to the root node via an out of band path.
> >
> > And also dropping "In either case" immediately following to align the
> > next sentence.
> >
> > That's it.  Thank you again for your comments.
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > > Best regards,
> > > zhenlong
> > > [...]
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
>