Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt

"Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945EC11E83F2; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9DPC4h6COwjv; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8204F11E81B5; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-64.lucent.com [135.5.2.64]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r9LFKFXC022033 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:20:16 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r9LFKEBc030679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:20:15 -0400
Received: from SG70XWXCHHUB02.zap.alcatel-lucent.com (135.253.2.47) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:20:15 -0400
Received: from SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.5.83]) by SG70XWXCHHUB02.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.253.2.47]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:20:12 +0800
From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "huubatwork@gmail.com" <huubatwork@gmail.com>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOxYUSjv9ovtIJkkW6NPBEAjYZSJn4XogAgAb4cPA=
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:20:11 +0000
Message-ID: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E4E6CED@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E4DB390@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com> <525FDDBA.1010306@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <525FDDBA.1010306@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.253.19.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:20:26 -0000

I saw the revised ID and the changes look good.

Cheers, Manav

-----Original Message-----
From: Huub van Helvoort [mailto:huubatwork@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:23 PM
To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone.all@tools.ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt

Hello Manav,

You wrote:

> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.

Thank you for your review.

I will address all your comments in the next spin of the draft.

I only want to bring some clarification to your proposal:

> o) In 3.7, it would be useful to mention that an important
 > property of co-routed bidirectional path is that the forward  > and backward directions share fate.
 > Similarly, in 3.1, we should mention that the forward and  > backward directions don't share fate.


Fate-sharing is NOT a requirement for co-routed bi-directional paths.  It is only a secondary effect.
E.g. in a cable only one of the fibers can fail/break, same for internal ports in routers, as well as forwarding.

The main requirements for co-routed bidirectional paths are:
== follow exactly the same path i.e. physical sections, and
    nodes in both directions
== the MEPS at the end-points can communicate directly via
    the RI (remote interface) NOT via the management plane == during a protection switch both directions are switched
    (at the same time) from working entity to protection entity.
== both are managed as a single entity

The only fate-sharing requirement in ITU-T is for OAM packets and data packets transported between the same endpoints See the first paragraph in clauses 6.4 and 7.1 of G.8113.1 and G.8113.2.

To resolve your point I can add text to 3.7 that both directions are managed and operated as a single entity; and in 3.1 that they need not be a single management and operational entity.


--
*****************************************************************
               请记住,你是独一无二的,就像其他每一个人一样