Re: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt

"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com> Fri, 20 February 2015 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi@cisco.com>
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 46C4E1A8826 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 07:24:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 I7UpCfwy3iX3 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 07:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C58731A8F34 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 07:20:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3804; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1424445621; x=1425655221; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+whCoIOvc5+WFtQkJF/O5l3pdpdD1DLT6FuUPwIDWZ0=; b=TZSKmw5GdnXoKOGUiCEjtXgMGiTj1955hHFOw2M4jRPKc8shV6B8F0fd YlxOvBIULzojCULhM+rtGFeLZBOUQZwrlNgDeiTSpusCQHKyhRjiXbDIZ 6BcxKWwjkId3SGXbpEhk+vALJIgLp37lgprO9kqZl6k93fniRYW6j+G/M Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ChBQB8UOdU/5hdJa1bgwZSVQUEwmYMhW8CgRhDAQEBAQEBfIQPAQEBAwEBAQE3MQMZBAEIEgYeKwwLFw4CBAESCYgeCAgF1FQBAQEBAQUBAQEBAQEcBIsLhAwRAR06hCoFjV6BcINchWWBGTiCW4tBgz4ig25vgQs5fwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,615,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="125439140"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2015 15:20:10 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1KFKABR008383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:20:10 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.221]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:20:10 -0600
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQTK+CEO51QnpGkkeIYsVJSWfvxZz5VPUAgABj14A=
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:20:09 +0000
Message-ID: <D10CBA76.504EF%rgandhi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E6B694.1010305@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.199]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <BF0ACEA408461246A1639A7728D59C8E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/z_8DiKSydFdR1I_88ksqh3HcgDw>
Subject: Re: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
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: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:24:32 -0000

Hi Loa,

Thank you for your comments.

We (authors) had requested the IANA allocation.
We (authors) are not aware of an implementation where this will introduce
an interop issue.

thanks,
Rakesh


On 2015-02-19 11:22 PM, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

>Rakesh, working group,
>
>I think that option (a) is the simplest and what we should do.
>
>One question though - the REVERSE_LSP Object was allocated by IANA
>like 6 month ago. This is normally done because we have implementations
>(often about to be deployed), now if we move from that the REVERSE_LSP
>Object "is not required" to "is required" will that cause backwards
>compatibility problems for the early implementations?
>
>/Loa
>
>
>
>On 2015-02-20 09:49, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> This revision introduces the changes for option (a) for the issue raised
>> in the email titled "[Teas] A clarification request for
>> draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp".
>>
>> The suggested changes are for your review. Welcome your
>> comments/suggestions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>> On 2015-02-19 8:14 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org"
>> <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>> This draft is a work item of the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
>>> Signaling Working Group of the IETF.
>>>
>>>         Title           : RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated
>>>Bidirectional
>>> LSPs
>>>         Authors         : Fei Zhang
>>>                           Ruiquan Jing
>>>                           Rakesh Gandhi
>>> 	Filename        :
>>> draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 20
>>> 	Date            : 2015-02-19
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    This document describes Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
>>>    extensions to bind two point-to-point unidirectional Label Switched
>>>    Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP.  The association
>>>    is achieved by defining new Association Types for use in ASSOCIATION
>>>    and in Extended ASSOCIATION Objects.  One of these types enables
>>>    independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs on
>>>both
>>>    sides, while the other enables single sided provisioning.  The
>>>    REVERSE_LSP Object is also defined to enable a single endpoint to
>>>    specify all the parameters of an associated LSP in the single sided
>>>    provisioning case.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> 
>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-asso
>>>ci
>>> ated-lsp/
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> 
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated
>>>-l
>>> sp-04
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> 
>>>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-asso
>>>ci
>>> ated-lsp-04
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Teas mailing list
>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> Teas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>
>
>-- 
>
>
>Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64