Re: [Pals] WG Last call draft-ietf-pals-tp-oam-config

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

I would think that it's OK to use the terms provided that it is defined, 
and it certainly needs to be defined.

Stewart

On 07/01/2016 11:43, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
> Mach,
>
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response and a valid clarification.
>
> Since there seem to be at least two of us puzzled by the term “dyadic 
> mode”, I would suggest either to replace it with its equivalent 
> “dual-ended measurement” (which, IMHO, is much better understood) or, 
> at least, explain the use of the term.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
> Office: [phone]
>
> Cell: [phone]
>
> Email: [e-mail]
>
> *From:*Mach Chen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 07, 2016 10:52 AM
> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein; Stewart Bryant
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Pals] WG Last call draft-ietf-pals-tp-oam-config
>
> Hi Shasha,
>
> Thanks for your time to read the draft!
>
> When I first saw your email, honestly, I also have no idea of what the 
> "Dyadic" is. I thought that it may be a typo :-).  So, I read the 
> draft again and find that Dyadic mode is actually defined in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6374#section-2.7.
>
> Most of the configration definitions are align with 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-16 and 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7487 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7487>. So, they should be right/wrong 
> for those common difinitions:-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mach
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Pals [[e-mail]] on behalf of Alexander Vainshtein 
> [[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 06, 2016 21:35
> *To:* Stewart Bryant
> *Cc:* [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Pals] WG Last call draft-ietf-pals-tp-oam-config
>
> Stewart,
>
> I will try to read the draft and provide some feedback by January 22nd.
>
> Meanwhile, while looking for the total number of pages in order to 
> understand whether I can handle this, I have found a reference to a 
> "/Dyadic mode of an egress LSR/". I have to admit that I do not know 
> what this means, and a short look-up in the Internet did not return 
> anything useful (unless somebody is going to use 2nd order tensors 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyadics> in MPLSJ).
>
> If the authors could explain in advance what they mean, it would 
> simplify the review.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
> Office: [phone]
>
> Cell: [phone]
>
> Email: [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pals [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:34 PM
> To: [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Pals] WG Last call draft-ietf-pals-tp-oam-config
>
> Hi Folks
>
> I guess that everyone has been busy over the holiday period.
>
> I really need some indication on the list that the WG wants to publish 
> this draft, otherwise I cannot take it forward to the IESG.
>
> I also need some volunteers to read the draft and check it over for 
> errors.
>
> So please can  have reviews and confirmation that we should go forward 
> with publication by 22nd January 2016.
>
> Thanks
>
> Stewart
>
> On 23/12/2015 13:00, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 09/12/2015 14:13, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> >> This message starts the WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pals-tp-oam-config.
>
> >>
>
> >> This draft can be found at
>
> >>
>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-oam-config/
>
> >>
>
> >> Please respond to this thread with substantive comments and an
>
> >> indication of whether you have read the text and whether or not you
>
> >> think it is ready for publication.
>
> >>
>
> >> I will close WGLC on 23rd December.
>
> >>
>
> >> Regards
>
> >>
>
> >> - Stewart
>
> >
>
> > PALS WG
>
> >
>
> > I should close this LC today, but I have no evidence in terms of list
>
> > traffic in response to this LC that I can present to the IESG  that
>
> > anyone has read it or cares whether we  publish it of not.
>
> >
>
> > Has anyone besides the chairs and authors read it?
>
> >
>
> > Should we publish it, and why?
>
> >
>
> > - Stewart
>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Pals mailing list
>
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
>