IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 24 January 2014 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2791A0185; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:13:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NoZXp5tSIVnW; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECBEE1A001A; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id wn1so4245279obc.34 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:13:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=z+TI4U3m5PbgLUPDpL/eYcK4iOGTB3v4XB1gJEuieKo=; b=HIxJDJjo4gbVE8mpZTjnEwcmMkKcuUCXx4jzGilUX3djfps1N4vAsCVlqyRWPTDdCo tb5vhL6F4wkYDWDI1lQnhDoXhUjJYOjM6bIkJjTgiZiaj3ksTPkaMLwh1CxU+t1S9pI9 3yuFSyltkV/Co8DpRGLR1H4aC3cfcOyju0xSPDYCC/d/v4tRG9rSc1XTpx37ghWl5/ki 3RDKS1DpIieoyYAt5Lf53+zab+BBLIsp4QfRFLSfKIJK+zWlcCF3hcz262zxngFcxzhc 4swEqS146c4w/nTk4QLZ/PvFVQ/gblSmxJOzwrESYTcYsGD4OBqRo0WpCIDU6my7sAW1 yA2Q==
X-Received: by 10.182.22.18 with SMTP id z18mr13814867obe.42.1390601600648; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.13] (cpe-76-187-7-89.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.7.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ii8sm3847353obb.11.2014.01.24.14.13.18 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:13:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52E2E57D.70403@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:13:17 -0600
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
References: <20140122172930.3D31A18C13B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <64A7AA55-795A-40FA-8008-5FCE3B8E2C44@netapp.com> <52E18661.4060000@isi.edu> <CACKN6JFzaGkiCzJgcd0BEHeWi5x0ReemJOv4ASuXAnz36RA-fg@mail.gmail.com> <52E18BF1.1040004@isi.edu> <CACKN6JEA6=vJM94gdhc8iBJV52eTg1X-f7fyBiouJMGz+HOqsw@mail.gmail.com> <52E1AC3E.2040204@isi.edu> <CAG4d1rf+wAJuD2GvYfm14bOoEvbhqq0azN5fOq35aPJDUvg=gw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rf+wAJuD2GvYfm14bOoEvbhqq0azN5fOq35aPJDUvg=gw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:13:24 -0000

On 01/23/2014 06:07 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> I don't want to get in the way of vehement discussion, but I thought 
> we were on the verge of finding an actual solution...
>
> IMHO, that was a combination of an applicability statement, using 
> SHOULD for congestion control and checksum, and defining a longer-term 
> OAM-based approach (as Stewart Bryant suggested) to be able to verify 
> that packet corruption or excessive drops aren't happening.
>
> Does that sound like an acceptable set?

Alia, I certainly hope so (speaking as an individual), and I appreciate 
you conjuring up the specter of an applicability statement (speaking as 
TSV AD).

I expect to find that helpful.

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email