IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 07 October 2016 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@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 CD253129594; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 Y1m9mzMReBYT; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (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 AC2791294C7; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id q192so46194249iod.0; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 05:59:51 -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=YdfgvM1OVvPhxsMg7Gb63NMA3kpkz6nLfQgaqZphcEU=; b=oxzcr4H7pt0/ka1wD4UB41wc5mnLw00UhX0141NUxlo05/MPOQf7i0kpxfFeM6b/CB wQGZ1Y+lTVM1tG4qz/KiFKqxz7ARUqgPbzM1OHgV7ZSBzQRSzTxeEsPoKJ31U5M5L/BG xAenTEaCKChMbCKN+XLGQi4FLiK3UphnMI79+Yi74za9MmQ/F840qKlCXi5kAX2sAzab sEaydUwbdkeZuxF6l4pFPF7IghGcJ7YeSej55UCVlfXQvGuPnqqny3Comh7GdLWXGiyQ Y6HDgiHVaQbgv5fifkKQ+THWraZbyg6jYylOvcLwmlT3kLoEOxKyPk+uRjfT1YXRl0Zs T8sQ==
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=YdfgvM1OVvPhxsMg7Gb63NMA3kpkz6nLfQgaqZphcEU=; b=Aqg7cglUbYhAtlDeLI5DHGe802YVVCvAgCJ1X/mvpWeP7dnG5TyJs8E+Kj0kg3Q+Ds pawzLlgwknWO8JpBOc8H0t/HYyiZsYhFUVVEe+OEg2vYhM/kXdKCUHNKwNymPk2Yl1Fw ec+tYKvvYhMQeDUXFAHnqHnqJk6chh8bgQboctlTfr1oPk6Y4ofIhu5VjyxDWu5iBE3z ZQDJghzvBd/ccDeM2qEEiDlwFgsojpe8Jawr8TrHMzzHcYlah56xnSQpHoJLk3xvsNJ+ seCsvrYquz7TAGtjbEDEfAuHjkh9/+cV9Nqqfe6U6G/fJDlCNcBApW2uPMoQGfIoUF/2 DOyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkWXD52NiOTKZF37SgGkiDNLQKyC/m5XHNiFPvKtRyOibICIdqK6IV6V1Wk/STKLG8qOhOZbOG8wDMp7g==
X-Received: by 10.107.2.88 with SMTP id 85mr10159689ioc.173.1475845190979; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 05:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.140.138 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTuh=x=BFc-GjE19YaZ2QtSxD=fC0jzziberM-RuGBQNWA@mail.gmail.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> <CA+YzgTuh=x=BFc-GjE19YaZ2QtSxD=fC0jzziberM-RuGBQNWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 08:59:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6frhBZTNFuiswm8hfBM0z_NgMNi+kXXnO0mngLpzNKidQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1139e68c5a16c7053e45fc37"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/d_fCELG5GR71f-pgFVWt4SgawYk>
Cc: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, "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: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 12:59:54 -0000

Hi Pavan,

Yes, Acking.

Thanks,
Rakesh


On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email