Re: [Teas] progressing draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 30 December 2014 16:15 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB83F1A0004 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:15:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.033
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 0RBpbTFEKbeJ for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.38.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 912671A000B for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 31200 invoked by uid 0); 30 Dec 2014 16:15:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 30 Dec 2014 16:15:27 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id ZsFK1p00z2SSUrH01sFNgD; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:15:27 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=eOCA0hZ1 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=xSRs65CQCjkA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=A92cGCtB03wA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=NwP7oIszpxyU6WMrjvAA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=2JOtklbuwVsA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=N6yv+MpNnD8tjsdeXcC5TVacG7fEWbrcB352t8NSm74=; b=E7jh0KgX2Sp0SRBrz3Ms/pc+UKDSp6cGL4Gj9up9OqLnErJ8N9Am/13AMiQcL1knU+ubcF8YKYB4fMnjpOM/kcf3Oso+JmufuRWg0vPpkPCnsULxd2f14iRLrC4fCdYs;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:46057 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Y5zS3-0005Z1-Ss; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:15:20 -0700
Message-ID: <54A2CF92.7050604@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:15:14 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb@tools.ietf.org>
References: <54A17A0A.6030305@labn.net> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927337F121B@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927337F121B@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/UsVPKCsD1hjwRt-xy6GrLlWnhXI
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] progressing draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:15:41 -0000
Kudos on the very fast response! Thank you, Lou On 12/29/2014 9:27 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: > Hi Lou, > > Thanks a lot for pointing out these comments, I just submitted a new revision (-01) to solve all of them. > > And please see my replies inline: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger >> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 11:58 PM >> To: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb@tools.ietf.org >> Cc: TEAS WG >> Subject: [Teas] progressing draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb >> >> Authors (WG), >> I'm the shepherd for this document. I was hoping to put in the >> publication request for this document today as it would have been nice to have >> a publication request in 2014! Unfortunately, I see some comments that were >> not addressed from before the LC. In particular, from the thread starting with >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/threads.html : >> >>> From: Dongjie (Jimmy): >>> ... >>>> From: Lou Berger >>> ... >>>> WRT section 2.1. Extensions for Lock Instruct: >>>> - What extension is defined in this subsection. What do you think >>>> about replacing section 2.1 with something along the lines of? >>>> >>>> 2.1. Lock Instruct Indication >>>> >>>> In order to indicate the lock/unlock of the LSP, the A >>>> (Administratively down) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object [RFC3471] >>>> [RFC3473] is used. >>>> >>> Agree with your suggestion. This could make section 2.1 much clearer. >> I think this means that the object format and bit definitions are to be removed. > Yes, my intention was to remove them, but somehow they were kept in the previous version. Now they are removed. > >>>>> Where is the Loopback (B) bit / Attribute Flag defined? This >> document, right? >> ... >>>> This said, you still need to mention where it is defined (e.g., in >> section 3.1, add >>>> "defined above" the first time you mention the bit) and add it to the >> IANA >>>> section. >>> Will fix this in the new revision. >> You still use "(B)" in Section 3.2, but nowhere else. Please replace all instances >> of "Loopback (B) bit" and "Loopback flag" with "Loopback Attribute Flag". > Now they are substituted by "Loopback Attribute Flag". > >> Finally, WRT the discussion on 2119 language, there is also one more "SHOULD" >> I have a question about: >> When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv >> messages SHOULD keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. >> >> Why isn't this a "MUST"? > Good catch. Have changed this one and another "SHOULD" in similar case to "MUST". > >> That's it, please let us/me know when to expect the next revision. > The new revision has just been submitted. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. > > Many thanks, > Jie > >> Thank you, >> Lou >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teas mailing list >> Teas@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
- [Teas] progressing draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] progressing draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] progressing draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li… Lou Berger