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

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
>>
>>
>
>