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

Parag,

Thanks!

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Parag Jain (paragj) <paragj@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Greg and Andy
>
>
>
> Sami and I prefer to go with “MUST for both”. I’ll update the draft and
> submit a new version.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Parag
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:03 AM
> *To: *"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"Parag Jain (paragj)" <paragj@cisco.com>, "pals@ietf.org" <
> pals@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>