Re: [mpls] Poll for Adoption draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02

Hi Ross, et al,

I have discussed over the mailing alias why I do not support this draft in the current form.
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg12403.html>
Authors and I could not converge to agreed conclusion.

Here are things I would like to see in the draft 

1. Provide an example with specific type of LSP and FEC type where is useful and also why existing RFC’s couldn’t solve it.
2. Details on how this draft will reduce ‘false failures’, given that every device has to support these new TLV’s.

As it was discussed in detail already over the mailing list, need to see the benefits for these extensions.
My point is, if problem is solved already with existing mechanisms, there is no need to solve with different method. We use that argument many times in the WG/IETF.
But if it is indeed solving something which couldn’t be solved thus far (I haven’t seen it yet), you will have my support.

cheers
-sam

On Aug 20, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> wrote:

> This is to start a two week poll on adopting draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02
> as an MPLS working group document.
>  
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working group
> mailing list (mpls@ietf.org).
>  
> This poll will end Thursday September 4, 2014.
>  
> Thanks, Ross
>  
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls