IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Wed, 24 November 2010 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6E13A69E7 for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:12:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jeZEC+ZHiuOI for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B65E3A69E6 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlwGAD8D7EytJV2Z/2dsb2JhbACCAZIrhjYBiAxxokWbHoVLBIRaiRk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.59,245,1288569600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="185574264"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 02:13:26 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAO2DQ1G030440; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:13:26 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-204.cisco.com ([72.163.62.211]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:13:26 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB8B7D.2D987D5E"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:13:26 -0600
Message-ID: <654701C60BCC7C4EBD533B89D72BDFEA02F17101@XMB-RCD-204.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W7AA37A5B0DB04562D20CFF43A0@phx.gbl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01
Thread-Index: AcuHz9kjwoi8VJQGQfyXHjpB+dQ3ZADrSMqQ
References: <SNT123-W7AA37A5B0DB04562D20CFF43A0@phx.gbl>
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Raymond Key <raymond.key@ieee.org>, pwe3@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2010 02:13:26.0766 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DE9C8E0:01CB8B7D]
Cc: thomas.nadeau@huawei.com, lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn, vishwas@ipinfusion.com
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:12:33 -0000

Hi Raymond,

 

Regarding step 5 in Option 1, shouldn't the SHOULD be a MUST? If the
locally configured CW parameter isn't used when PE1 sends label mapping,
we're back to square 1 right?

 

Regards,

Reshad.

 

     5. PE1 will send label mapping message with Cbit=1 again to PE2

        (Note: PE1 SHOULD send label mapping with locally configured CW

         parameter).

 

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Raymond Key
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 4:54 AM
To: pwe3@ietf.org
Cc: thomas.nadeau@huawei.com; lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn;
vishwas@ipinfusion.com
Subject: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01

 

Hi PWE3 working group,
 
In the recent IETF79, we have presented the draft "Pseudowire Control
Word Negotiation Mechanism Analysis and Update"  
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 
 
This draft describes the problem of control word negotiation mechanism
specified in RFC4447. Based on the problem analysis, possible solutions
and their potential shortcomings are also discussed.
 
The authors would like to have more feedback from the mailing list
before working on the next version. Grateful if you could review the
document and post comments on the mailing list.
 
Thanks,
Raymond Key

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status