Re: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rolf,
802.1ag differentiates as Up or Down both MEP and MIP Half Function (MHF). I assume that Y.1731 is not different (not much different).

        Regards,
                Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf Winter [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

Hi Greg,

thanks for the comments. Some relies inline.

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014


> *     Section 3
>
> *     Note that RFC 6371 refers to per-interface MEP as Up and Down
> (Section 3.3, p.15) whereas in this document per-interface MIPs
> referred as in- and out-. I think that both types of Maintanence
> Points
> (MP) must use one terminology in regard to location in per-interface
> model.

I see your point. But I think you could argue this two ways. I personally liked in- and out-MIP as it illustrates the point of MIPs being transit points and therefore somewhat different in nature. RFC 6371 does talk about per-interface MIPs but does not name them in any way, which I found strange at first. Can someone involved in the ITU-T (or IEEE for that matter) maybe comment on terminology here. Up/Down MEP is a commonly used term, but how about per interface-MIPs?

>
> *     Section 4.
>
> *     I believe that CV operation can be performed only between MEPs,
> not between MEP and MIP, as stated in the document.

Would qualifying it as on-demand CV work for you?

> *     I think that "diagnostic tests" is bit too open-ended and would
> suggest considering making this bullet more specific or removing it
> altogether.

This is a term taken from 5860 - the OAM requirements. I agree that a number of more specific OAM functions fall into the category of diagnostic test, but using the term should be fine give that it has been used already in RFCs. Would you agree?

Thanks again,

Rolf

>
>
>         Regards,
>                 Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]
> <mailto:mpls- [e-mail]> ] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:51 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> Subject: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>
> Working Group,
>
> the authors of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map have indicated that the
> draft is ready for working group last call.
>
> Before we start the working group last call an IPT poll is needed.
>
> This is to start the IPR Poll.
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-
> map?
>
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
> to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the MPLS wg mailing
> list. The documents will not advance to the next stage until a
> response has been received from each author and contributor.
>
> If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author
> or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
> of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>
> Thanks, Loa
> (as MPLS WG co-chair)
>
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
>                                               [phone]
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>