Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05.txt last call
Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com> Tue, 16 August 2005 18:18 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5618-0000KK-Vu; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:18:30 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E5617-0000K1-5R for pwe3@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:18:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26749 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E56aV-0000KI-7n for pwe3@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:55:03 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Aug 2005 11:18:21 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,113,1122879600"; d="scan'208"; a="6159868:sNHT23163636"
Received: from [209.245.27.1] ([10.32.241.115]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id j7GIIFT6006217; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:18:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <43022DE7.4090107@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:18:15 -0600
From: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mail/News Client 1.0+ (X11/20050603)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05.txt last call
References: <429C8487.80401@cisco.com> <42AFA0EF.2020702@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <42AFA0EF.2020702@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075
X-from-outside-Cisco: [10.32.241.115]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 17e5edc4dfd335965c1d21372171c01c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net>, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Carlos, Comments in line below. Thanks. Luca Carlos Pignataro wrote: >***Please find comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05.txt >marked `***CP': > > >----- > >1. Section 3.1: > > There are three requirements that may need to be satisfied when > transporting layer 2 protocols over an MPLS backbone: > >***CP: Is a PW-ACH a 4th requirement to use CW? > > > PW-ACH ? Not sure what this is. you mean ARCH ? in this case there is no requirements on the part of the ppp/hdlc to use the CW. > [snip] > > In the above diagram the first 4 bits are set to 0 in indicate PW > data [ARCH]. > >***CP: Maybe the above reference should be to the CW draft. > > > indeed. changed. > The next 4 bits provide space for carrying protocol specific flags. > These are not used for HDLC/PPP and they They MUST be set to 0 when > transmitting, and MUST be ignored upon receipt. > >***CP: Bits 8 and 9 are missing in this description. A "The next 2 >***CP: bits..." is missing, to say either "Reserved" as in Figure 2 or > > yes - fixed, >***CP: better to reference [FRAG] (since covered in Section 3.2). > > > no - I would like to avoid a normative reference to FRAG. > The next 6 bits provide a length field, which is used as follows: If > the packet's length (defined as the length of the layer 2 payload > >----- > >2. Section 3.2 > >***CP: s/exeeed/exceed/ > > > ok. >----- > >3. Section 4.1 > > > When the PE detect a status change in the attachment circuit status, > >***CP: ^detects > > > ok. > such as an attachment circuit physical link failure, or the AC is > > [snip] > > The HDLC mode is suitable for port to port transport of Frame Relay > UNI or NNI traffic. It must be noted, however, that this mode is > transparent to the FECN, BECN and DE bits. Since all packets are > >***CP: I wonder if the above para should be moved to Section 4.2 > > > it is almost repeated in section 4.2, I think it's fine as is . > [snip] > > The PW of type 0x0006 "HDLC" will be used to transport HDLC frames > while PW of type 0x0007 "PPP" will be used to transport PPP frames. > >***CP: `PW of type 0x0007 "PPP"...' should probably go into Section 4.3. >***CP: Or all the PW Types (including FR Port mode currently in Section >***CP: 4.2) together. > > > ok fixed. >----- > >4. Section 4.2 > > between a FR device and a PE is either a FR UNI or NNI. The set of n > FR VCs between the two FR ports P1 and P2 which are controlled by the > same signaling channel using DLCI=0, are mapped into one PW. Hence > >***CP: It seems to me that "are controlled" could be more descriptive. >***CP: It could also make explicit that the PVC status management >***CP: procedures per Q.933 Annex A happen between CEs. This would be >***CP: inline with the second to last sentence of Section 4.3 > > > ok. >----- > >5. Section 4.3 > > PPP mode provides point to point transport of PPP encapsulated > traffic, as specified in [PPP]. The PPP PDU is transported in its > entirety, including the protocol field (whether compressed using PFC > >***CP: Protocol Field Compression not defined (only the acronym) > > > ok. > [snip] > > When the PE detect a status change in the attachment circuit status, > >***CP: ^detects > > > ok > such as an attachment circuit physical link failure, or the AC is > administratively disabled, the PE MUST send the appropriate PW status > notification message that corresponds to the HDLC AC status. It > >***CP: s/HDLC/PPP/ > > > ok >----- > >6. Section 5. > >***CP: Missing TTL setting in the LSE? > >----- > > > a particular TTL setting is a matter of local policy ... not defined here. >7. General: > >***CP: The Title, Abstract, Introduction and Section 3.1 only center >***CP: around and explicitly cite HDLC and PPP (search for `PPP/HDLC') >***CP: and do not mention "FR Port Mode" (added later). > > > > Yes. This is on purpose. F/R port mode is just a special terminology for an HDLC PW. I'm not sure we need to mention this in the abstract. There should be a pointer to this draft from the frame-relay draft. That is , in my mind, sufficient for somebody to find frame-relay port mode ... >Thanks ! > >--Carlos. > >Circa 5/31/2005 11:36 AM, Stewart Bryant said the following: > > >>This is the start of last call for >> >>draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05.txt >> >>Last call will close on 20 June 2005 >> >>- Stewart >> >>_______________________________________________ >>pwe3 mailing list >>pwe3@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
- [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05.txt… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05… Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05… Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05… Carlos Pignataro