Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
 with ESMTP id 6B8A821F8470; Thu,  9 Jun 2011 14:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hS4K+ZjJmwtF;
 Thu,  9 Jun 2011 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com
 [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5002C21F846C;
 Thu,  9 Jun 2011 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so2159468vxg.31 for <multiple recipients>;
 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
 h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
 bh=TYqoAqv/k4HxTinAazbI8524xLrmkdrWI3ogna1HmyQ=;
 b=WvWdoDhmjAOwltfRhfz68fDfdoOAQvYLEMCNnkvATAWgoeuDKgvEweM6zRvftXv/hI
 sDGbi7O1lgL81oN5wkUw5PAwrjH7W1MMic8DHUwstmO3V9CRX3bL0GIaRSEZlmWy0TRH
 LerNijk+zPpiQN38cjGYngCBNBOl0MfZUirJY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :content-type;
 b=Hn1gICBKEtOuBWMamXH/v+sJjfZnLAl0emrXTOn00EN0xIj+td0CaDbkpgP3Du1YOM
 VkMGWOeD1BqxFRIjhys9ZWYC3jD26SoN6eMhPdW167govJj4dRVWzcvZj74yxQEwydV/
 ZruXcVQcGYCtjj8b5Mmrb5LSMZ1AjpKFdTJ60=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.97.104 with SMTP id dz8mr1893146vdb.146.1307656693593;
 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.169.165 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik5HhC9piYN1nShWEtGWnKwH81DLin9C1+m972W@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik5HhC9piYN1nShWEtGWnKwH81DLin9C1+m972W@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:58:13 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTineL32Ltua=ZbT7i9h2ZdMU2kZm=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>,
 pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f35f4b5b7a804a54e8ced
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Comments to draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2-01
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>,
 <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>,
 <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 21:58:15 -0000

--20cf307f35f4b5b7a804a54e8ced
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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 <gregimirsky@gmail.com> 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
>
>
>
>

--20cf307f35f4b5b7a804a54e8ced
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Authors,<br>perhaps I&#39;ve missed your response and I&#39;ve decided=
 to re-post.<br><br>Regards,<br>Greg<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Greg Mirsky <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com">gregimirsky@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br=
>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Dear Authors,<br>please find my comments be=
low.<br><ul><li>this proposal is closely related to changes to RFC 5586 put=
 forward in draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00 but there&#39;s no reference=
 to the draft.</li>
<li>RFC 5586 states and the draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00 maintains th=
at 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 n=
ot BoS. But the document&#39;s scope is for all MPLS PWs, including over MP=
LS-TP PSN. Unless statement in Section 4.2 RFC 5586 &quot;In MPLS-TP (GAL) =
... MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack   (i.e., S bit set to 1=
)&quot; updated proposed use of GAL is allowed only in non-TP MPLS PSN.</li=
>

<li>Section 2 lists of allowed ACH. Since these are hexadecimal numbers I&#=
39;d suggest prepending them with &#39;0x&#39; to make as &quot;0x07, 0x21,=
 and 0x57&quot;. And I&#39;d ask for clarification of &quot;allowed&quot;. =
Is it &quot;MAY&quot;, &quot;SHOULD&quot; or &quot;MUST&quot; be limited to=
 ... A, B, C&quot;?</li>

<li>In Section 3 stated that TTL in PW LSE must be set to 1 for SS-PW and t=
o appropriate value in MS-PW to reach intended PE. Hence my question, Is th=
is mechanism to reach MIP, i.e. S-PE, or this is mechanism to generate exce=
ption? But that is how PW VCCV Control Channel Type 3 works. What is the in=
terpretation of GAL in a label stack? To indicate PW CW after the PW LSE?</=
li>

<li>editorial - in Abstract s/The MPLS/the MPLS or a reference to, perhaps,=
 RFC 5654.<br></li></ul><br>Regards,<br><font color=3D"#888888">Greg<br><br=
><br><pre><span><h1><br></h1></span></pre>
</font></blockquote></div><br>

--20cf307f35f4b5b7a804a54e8ced--