Re: [Pals] PALS Working Group last call for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01

Hi Andy,
indeed, the interoperability is the new issue after we've introduced two
options. For PW I'd consider use of PW ACH as MUST and GAL as SHOULD. But
MUST for both makes sense as well.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Parag and Greg,
>
> I’ve just reviewed the update, and it looks good except for one thing -
> now that there are two options for encapsulation, to ensure
> interoperability, we need to choose at least one (or both) as a MUST for
> implementation. I would propose at least the GAL Label encapsulation as a
> MUST, and I prefer that both be required (but I won’t insist if you don’t
> agree).
>
> So we need to add a sentence to section 5 along the lines of “To ensure
> interoperability, implementations of this document MUST support the GAL
> Label encapsulation.” Or “To ensure interoperability, implementations of
> this document MUST support both encapsulations.”
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Parag,
>> thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments. I've checked
>> the update and have found all my comments being addressed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Parag Jain (paragj) <paragj@cisco.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments. Please see inline.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Authors,
>>> please find my WG LC comments below:
>>>
>>>    - per RFC 5586 GAL can be used to identify OAM payload but it is not
>>>    necessary for PW. We can use PW ACH per RFC 4385 without putting GAL in;
>>>
>>> pj> yes, both the options can be supported - GAL label as well as PW
>>> ACH. Will update the draft to add PW ACH.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - it is not clear what "IP ACH Channel header" is. Is it IP ACH
>>>    Channel type? But MPLS G-ACh Types registry
>>>    <http://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-parameters.xhtml#mpls-g-ach-types> doesn't
>>>    have IP ACH type but IPv4 (0x0021) and IPv6 (0x0057) types.
>>>
>>> pj> You are right, by IP ACH channel type we mean both ipv4 and ipv6
>>> ACH. Will update the draft.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Parag
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having heard from all of the authors regarding IPR, this starts the WG
>>>> last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals
>>>> -p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 . Because it’s over IETF week, this last call
>>>>  will last for three weeks, ending on April 5. Please review the draft
>>>> and send all comments to pals@ietf.org.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pals mailing list
>>>> Pals@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>