Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt
Dan Frost <frost@mm.st> Tue, 01 September 2015 11:23 UTC
Return-Path: <frost@mm.st>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF46D1B4121 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 04:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BKvawljrZG6g for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 04:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AACE51B40DB for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 04:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3130208B6 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:23:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web4 ([10.202.2.214]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 01 Sep 2015 07:23:54 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mm.st; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Y5C9U4/gXX0zGiHD91K14VBFWRA=; b=CyoDd+ DkrU5ALOD8Ja1N+pX9T+W1kaW5RlTC8fQXbT3EbLsiAzdlJ9csXGRODfm3f+w8hg POtx7MnPSkfSNFVO/C6Ph8NJQs7Wlf6DvRANXSkrB8acI49DIXXyIhPEyNFZyLg7 HJHRo193zsZoeKeNmEPYb48vWbEoO53A5PJN4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=Y5C9U4/gXX0zGiH D91K14VBFWRA=; b=IHNKd94lMazZiosWpdPtpSwuKQutz62hjNfLC+wXNVeQZoU iLjTtp0vj79U0KrXYJcIZXdXqPINkTbGu2mrA1FLZQLbry2DV2lWQEzwkN4wpjnp OjktmzlbIcdI5QWCZ654ghxaxGOd1wA3sq/BsjNjf6CvMsqUsTdETnt3QHOo=
Received: by web4.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id B4FBE1040E2; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:23:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1441106634.3630360.371549081.1A8F1AF0@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: 2nUYc0SH1TaKENtmh75yrrmMNnR8vIfgUALI1SZAdwj7 1441106634
From: Dan Frost <frost@mm.st>
To: Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-4500bf93
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:23:54 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAFqGwGupg+Ts0OUr9+Y+4vg1MmqG_OYZZquf-D98Cq_b6EgiKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1440002992.3391528.360465129.4D684834@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAFqGwGupg+Ts0OUr9+Y+4vg1MmqG_OYZZquf-D98Cq_b6EgiKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/pY0lZW9aytBvDvbUG4waWFOy3WA>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@tools.ietf.org, rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:23:57 -0000
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015, at 09:19, Nobo Akiya wrote: > [...] > Again, thanks for reviewing the document Dan. Please let me know what > you would like for the Sub-TLV preference within the Reply Path TLV ... > which is really an issue with RFC 7110. Many thanks for your updates, Nobo! Regarding the preference issue, yes, I think this is a good place to clarify it, as this document already updates 7110. -d