Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01
"Claude Kawa"<kawa@nortelnetworks.com> Fri, 19 April 2002 02:29 UTC
From: Claude Kawa <kawa@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:29:23 -0400
Lines: 320
Sender: pwe3-admin@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1E74A.01A9DCB0"
Return-path: <pwe3-admin@ietf.org>
To: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Errors-To: pwe3-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
Status: O
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20140418091553.2560.73911.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
I would like to propose changes to draft kamapabhava-01 taking into account the comments received the last few days in order to progress this work. I will be able to produce a new draft in 2-3 weeks (next week I am out of the office). Proposed changes to draft-kamapabhava-01: -Fragmentation is an important issue, if we cannot resolve it now I propose the following changes to the FRoPW header: We encode bits I and L used to identified the fragments as 0 0 (0 0 means a complete frame) and work on the solution without preventing the draft to progress. -The P bit used to identified the payload as user data or network management data, I propose that we keep this bit with the following description: P - Payload Type (bit 3): If set to zero then the payload field contains user's data else its contents is not specified in this document. With this proposal, network and vendor may use P=1 in a proprietary way to carry whatever they want to carry with the caveat that standardization of the use of P=1 in the future may obsolete its proprietary use. With these two changes the header will look like: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Res |P|B|F|D|C|0|0| Length | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ We have now the header in draft-martini (when P = 0). Now I will address emails proposing other changes/explanations. If I missed anything let met know. -Sasha email: Item 1 was addressed above: " I have noticed that the FRoPW Control Word still contains bit "P" that distinguishes user and maintenance traffic - in spite of the maintenance protocol issue being removed from the draft." Item 2: This one is about dropping frame out-of order vs. re-ordering them We can re-introduce and improve the text of version 00: "Packets, which are received out of order, MAY be dropped or reordered at the discretion of the receiver". Item 3: "The draft defines two modes of operation, but if only one of them - port to port - is referred to as a "mode". What is more, one mode (the same) is defined as OPTIONAL but neither is defined as REQUIRED. Setting aside - for the moment - which mode should be which, explicit names for all the modes and explicit specification of the REQUIRED mode would be very much in place. In particular, this would help with creating a 'per mode' applicability statement (preferably inline - the draft is not too long)". About what is optional and what is mandatory. I prefer to address this item later since we have IP and L2TPv3 too in addition to MPLS tunnels. I propose that we do not specify what is mandatory and what is optional now but wait to see the complete spec covering other tunnels. Item 4: "The draft specifies a set of requirements for FRoPW. Have you considered providing a check-list matching these requirements with the design spec? IMHO this would be very useful and (hopefully) not too difficult (in the worst case you can always drop an especially inconvenient requirement :-). Personally I would like to understand how the requirement for mapping the traffic management parameters is met with this spec." We will check the requirements list against the design spec and drop/change what needs to be dropped/changed. However for traffic management, it will take a little bit more time to address. We will not do it in the next version if we produce it in 2-3 weeks as we propose. Traffic management is definitely a high priority item. -Comment from George Wilkie about the control word: We will follow the suggestion in George's email: "The doc appears to require the use of the FRoPW control word for all types of PSN.I understand the need for MPLS, not clear to me for other PSNs, e.g. L2TPv3. L2TPv3 can do without the control word since it has its own sequencing capability and IP has no need for length field. The DLCI can remain on the frame to carry the FBDC bits and avoid inefficient copy out/in." -Next comments are from LLoyd Wood email that came today (Thursday) 1-We will address the use of IP tunnel. We have a placeholder for that but MPLS seemed to have a higher priority. 2-About the security section we will use what is draft-bryant-pwe3-fr-encap. It looks good. 3-We will try to adopt other useful material from draft bryant complementing draft kamapabhava-01. Anything else I missed? Now I would like to propose to write a new version of kamapabhava with the above changes/additions as a working group draft. Claude Kawa
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Claude Kawa
- Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Claude Kawa
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 W. Mark Townsley
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Claude Kawa
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Stewart Bryant
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Andrew G. Malis
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Claude Kawa
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Danny McPherson
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Shahram Davari
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Khalid Ahmad
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Danny McPherson
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Danny McPherson
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Khalid Ahmad
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 neil.2.harrison
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 neil.2.harrison
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 W. Mark Townsley
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Giles Heron
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Stewart Bryant
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Eric Rosen
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Giles Heron
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Andrew G. Malis
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Kavi, Prabhu
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 W. Mark Townsley
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Luca Martini
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Luca Martini
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Luca Martini
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Shahram Davari
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 W. Mark Townsley
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Shahram Davari
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Giles Heron
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 W. Mark Townsley
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Stewart Bryant
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Giles Heron
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Luca Martini
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 neil.2.harrison
- Re: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 Luca Martini
- RE: Proposed changes to draft kamapabhava-01 neil.2.harrison