Re: [PWE3] Comments to draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2-01

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors,
perhaps I've missed your response and I've decided to re-post.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Authors,
> please find my comments below.
>
>    - this proposal is closely related to changes to RFC 5586 put forward
>    in draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00 but there's no reference to the draft.
>    - RFC 5586 states and the draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00 maintains
>    that in MPLS-TP network the GAL must be BoS. Only in non-TP MPLS netowrks
>    GAL might be not a BoS. In your proposal the GAL precedes the PW and thus is
>    not BoS. But the document's scope is for all MPLS PWs, including over
>    MPLS-TP PSN. Unless statement in Section 4.2 RFC 5586 "In MPLS-TP (GAL) ...
>    MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack (i.e., S bit set to 1)"
>    updated proposed use of GAL is allowed only in non-TP MPLS PSN.
>    - Section 2 lists of allowed ACH. Since these are hexadecimal numbers
>    I'd suggest prepending them with '0x' to make as "0x07, 0x21, and 0x57". And
>    I'd ask for clarification of "allowed". Is it "MAY", "SHOULD" or "MUST" be
>    limited to ... A, B, C"?
>    - In Section 3 stated that TTL in PW LSE must be set to 1 for SS-PW and
>    to appropriate value in MS-PW to reach intended PE. Hence my question, Is
>    this mechanism to reach MIP, i.e. S-PE, or this is mechanism to generate
>    exception? But that is how PW VCCV Control Channel Type 3 works. What is the
>    interpretation of GAL in a label stack? To indicate PW CW after the PW LSE?
>    - editorial - in Abstract s/The MPLS/the MPLS or a reference to,
>    perhaps, RFC 5654.
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
>
>