Return-Path: 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 3265611E80A7; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.25 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.348, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 32cF4ybUuZ2X; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3322211E80A3; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.69.31] (unknown [141.202.11.155]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AD71C054F4; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3--74804653 From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:47:56 -0400 Message-Id: <878D233B-D3BA-4A3A-8E2A-314C171F10D9@lucidvision.com> References: To: Greg Mirsky X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: pwe3 , Luca Martini , mpls@ietf.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:48:01 -0000 --Apple-Mail-3--74804653 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greg, =20 On Jun 9, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Dear Authors, > perhaps I've missed your response and I've decided to re-post. Apologies for the delay in responding. =20 >=20 > Regards, > Greg >=20 > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Greg Mirsky = 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. TOM: Cool. We can add that as a requirement. > 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. TOM: That was a typo. We've swapped the GAL and PW labels in = version -02. > 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"? TOM: We copied the format of the base VCCV RFC, but I can update = this way if no one else objects. > 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. TOM: We added those restrictions so that the protocol behaved = properly for SS and MH PWs. > What is the interpretation of GAL in a label stack? To indicate PW CW = after the PW LSE? TOM: Do you mean the interpretation of the GAL in the label = stack as defined in the draft, or in general? > editorial - in Abstract s/The MPLS/the MPLS or a reference to, = perhaps, RFC 5654. TOM: Will add to version -03 with the other changes above. --Tom >=20 > Regards, > Greg >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-3--74804653 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii = Greg,
 

On Jun 9, 2011, = at 5:58 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:

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


Apologies = for the delay in responding.  


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.

TOM: = Cool. We can add that as a requirement.
  • 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.
TOM: That = was a typo. We've swapped the GAL and PW labels in version = -02.
  • 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"?
TOM: We = copied the format of the base VCCV RFC, but I can update this way if no = one else objects.
  • 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.
TOM: We = added those restrictions so that the protocol behaved properly for SS = and MH PWs.
  • What is = the interpretation of GAL in a label stack? To indicate PW CW after the = PW LSE?
TOM: Do = you mean the interpretation of the GAL in the label stack as defined in = the draft, or in general?
  • editorial - in Abstract s/The MPLS/the MPLS or a reference to, = perhaps, RFC 5654.
TOM: Will = add to version -03 with the other changes = above.

= --Tom



Regards,
Greg





= --Apple-Mail-3--74804653--