IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] <draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-05>: Review

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Thu, 06 October 2016 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0E3129400; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pnc2OGfXpX7x; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27C5A1293F4; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id z126so27575458vkd.0; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 12:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/24UpejL1dBoJgDv/wMrS9CxUemUM1xxDmIOYX4f9cQ=; b=wd6xp7L2ba07cAbLT1sYc85UN6VSd6gk2hoXTlurdwuGKEm94cQycXup3uo4wIPN1/ gaz10xTbPQT5LJB22NexpQ95HJ2WUUMdURx7I/7fnlfXpxtMpC42rOh3VtKBnjRIzcdc FBR8asK99JiGaz5U2uhpFVjX3FuJEL88SmfnQOha52pyRKRa0uWXP7P53Mi70Sv5k8w/ H0NA8v6TG4iv3VlGpKGtDEUKXu7dwitfHzqh+F3khdya2c0iCTPTZSks19vIuWYsKGi6 fHCj7Tkd5K9qltHULJcmREyjxPGH3AYHmGYvoR1n/pmMqHQtu9hLVjNwjFqK1WvEkrHY KaFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/24UpejL1dBoJgDv/wMrS9CxUemUM1xxDmIOYX4f9cQ=; b=lOsWGlBIMvBVg3tvqJuTxoly89qf9PLGgxb2CNp0FV8zsi8oXNB60oGzO1XPLPEk/t Y+1Pfg/7AuctapIFg/dArLvHQmSPWJRdW+pBZsdD6eGdIp0nzSFibN2Rt3OYSmkteMmI 9twFFOVMykpkT0vMjz6PLqBb7lk565GQI3ZJJqty/+m1IBVlF1jAqsEVcg38qQQ2uMyv 6q/09qhtUov2S29rLf86T0tdfjx2PC/kijepwTZOPsbXwTA+v3whX1PSbIzkGSeZ8xOC bwIOMoowvDdjb9WpO/vlhwcqGh7cva8AX0QPIcIQgfZha708K6r7+mNBdf38TPq7f2kk 1laQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RklhWnisnoBP4NAkOzYwYRWCcXo4nLwzwxJrSPjbh0cpdghOLto+wHx9MeGhC1NVOoOYciSZyVidubmRg==
X-Received: by 10.31.222.66 with SMTP id v63mr12382743vkg.46.1475782460257; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 12:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.151.148 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F4F7EF2E-A4A7-4E2B-8A4E-89034E93984D@cisco.com>
References: <CA+YzgTvG4_8yVrG7_OVqd-iYCnAnNUJcMOVN6As7riYt+ZrPxw@mail.gmail.com> <D3F19E06.A62D7%rgandhi@cisco.com> <CA+YzgTsnjvd1L8BzBvQq-q_iCH6f_UUK_sbfN0jszvaxWMcZZw@mail.gmail.com> <F4F7EF2E-A4A7-4E2B-8A4E-89034E93984D@cisco.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 15:34:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTuh=x=BFc-GjE19YaZ2QtSxD=fC0jzziberM-RuGBQNWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07b30c4f3a56053e3761bb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/dWKpq4AZLNAFI2PHyp00_PfPqkQ>
Cc: "draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] <draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-05>: Review
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 19:34:23 -0000

Rakesh, Hi!

Please see below.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
>
> When should a recipient node give up on waiting for more fragments? Use a
> configurable timer? A statement or two clarifying this in the draft would
> be useful.
>
> <RG> Yes, using a configurable timer.  Sure, we can add text it in the
> next update.
>

[VPB] You can add it in the next update along with other WG LC comments (if
any).

>
> If I understood the above text correctly, what the draft is saying is the
> following:
> "If all the fragments are not received within a stipulated amount of time,
> the recipient node SHOULD behave the same way as it would when there are no
> fragments". Is this interpretation correct?
>
> <RG> A node should receive at least one fragmented packet to trigger the
> above logic and should behave as if there were no fragmented message
> received for building the S2L list.
>

[VPB] Please do add the above statement to the draft in the next update
(after the LC).


>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
> Regards,
> -Pavan
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email