It looks like this draft does not define a "single" solution for CC, CV and RDI function >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it >Data: 13-lug-2011 15.02 >A: "IETF-Announce"<ietf-announce@ietf.org> >Cc: "mpls@ietf.org"<mpls@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org"<ietf@ietf.org> >Ogg: [mpls] R: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard > >Dear all, >I regret to say I have the same concerns expressed by Rui and Erminio about the procedure adopted for this document that has brought so many discussions. Anyway, probably because of the lack of a reasonable time (in my opinion) for discussions about the previous document version (-04) I have the following comments on this version: > >1. it is not clear the BFD's scope > Sect. 1: PW, LSP, SPME > Sect. 1: LSP > Sect 3: LSP > Sect 3.1:LSP, PW > Sect 3.3: PW, LSP, SPME, Section > Sect 3.7: LSP > >2. encapsulation > Sect 1: supported encapsulation GAL/GACh, VCCV, UDP/IP: can be expressed a preference (MUST/MAY) for Transport Profile applications for interoperability issues? I would avoid single vendor networks coming from too many options. > >3. diagnostic code 5 > Could you clarify what is the BFD state machine behavior receiving/transmitting a Diagn Code=5 > >4. detection time > Sect 3.2: I expect it is that one defined in RFC5884 i.e. detect Mult x greater (bfd.requiredminrxinterval, last received desired min tx interval). What "interval" means is not clear > >5. session periodicity > Sec 3.3 Should be clarified being not defined in RFC5880 > >6. detection of loss of continuity > Sect 3.3 can CV packet sent on the wire replace CC packet (for LOC purpose on the far end)? > >7. CV vs CC packets > Sect 3.6 Generally speaking, how should the received CV packet's fields be managed with respect of the BFD state machine/BFD states? (beyond what is specified in such paragraph limited to P/F and Sta). > >8. encoding > Sect 3.5: could you clarify what " A BFD session will only use one encoding of the Source ID TLV" means? > >9. editorial > Source ID TLV, MEP source ID TLV, Source MEP TLV should be aligned > >10. terminology > Wrt sect 3.6 I would ask a clarification about the terminology where I found > a- "A BFD session corresponds to a CC and proactive CV OAM instance" > b- " A BFD session is enabled when the CC and proactive CV functionality is enabled" > c- " When the CC and proactive CV functionality is disabled ..., the BFD session transitions to the ADMIN DOWN State and the BFD session ends" > In the ADMIN DOWN state I understood I can have BFD control packet exchange between the end points. Is it consistent with CC/CV functionality disabled? >11. code points > Code points are not specified in section 3.1 as stated > >12. BFD fixed rate > Sect 3.7 " This rate is a fixed value common for both directions of MEG for the lifetime of the MEG". Is this statement implying that MEG must be destroyed to be able to change the BFD rate? Should not be limited to the BFD session lifetime (to be clarified what it means... because moving to ADMIN DOWN state both ends could not be enough) > >13. two BFD modes > Sect 3.7 " Two independent BFD sessions are used for independent operation". In my opinion, this approach still remain a big limitation in BFD usage. > Is it implementation specific the way the two ends distinguish between the two BFD modes? > >14. bfd.RemoteDiscr > Sect 3.7 " In coordinated mode, an implementation SHOULD NOT reset bfd.RemoteDiscr until it is exiting the DOWN state" > Is it a deviation from BFD as specified in RFC 5880? If it is, could you clarified the reason for that? > >15. bfd.RemoteDiscr > Sect 3.7 Could you clarify the reasons behind different treatments for bfd.RemoteDiscr in coordinated mode and independent mode? > >16. overall operation > Sect 3.7 "Overall operation is as specified in [4] and augmented for MPLS in[8]" > Are you sure that it can be generalized in that way? Should not be the case to specify more in details what applies and what do not apply? > >17. IP-based BFD > Sect 3.1 IP-based BFD can carry out CV functionality only if IP SA is public > >18. CV during transient states > Sect 3.2 for clarification: at start-up, CC are sent one per second. CV are sent in addition to CC (so we have two BFD packets per second)? > >19. misconnections > Sect 3.7.3 sect 3.7.3 states a misconnection bring BFD session to DOWN whilst it is not clear if sect 3.7.5 state that misconnection do not impact on BFD state transition > >20. encapsulation modes > Sect 4: if I understood well, there are 4 encapusulations and modes for BFD: UDP/IP/LSP; CC mode in G-ACh; UPD/IP in G-ACh e CC/CV mode in G-ACh. > Do all of them satisfy transport requirements? > I understand they are not interoperable (as well as the two BFD mode for the same CC/CV in G-Ach encapsulation). Is it correct? > >Best regards, >Alessandro > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >Telecom Italia >Alessandro D'Alessandro >Transport Innovation >Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino >phone: +39 011 228 5887 >mobile: +39 335 766 9607 >fax: +39 06 418 639 07 > > >-----Messaggio originale----- >Da: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di Loa Andersson >Inviato: mercoledì 6 luglio 2011 17:44 >A: Rui Costa >Cc: mpls@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce >Oggetto: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard > >All, > >Since someone has commented about the process used for resolving questions on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi I am supplying some details below. > >The history of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi working group review process is: > >On February 3rd 2011 the working group last call was issued on version -03 > > This was copied to the the Ad Hoc Team List > and liaised to SG15 also on February 3rd > > This working group last call ended om Feb 28 > > > On Feb 28 we also received a liaison with comments from SG15 > > >The authors compiled a list of all comments received as part the MPLS working group last call; these comments - and the intended resolution - is included in the meeting minutes from the Prague meeting: > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/mpls-9.pdf > > > During the IETF meeting in Prague, we agreed with the BFD working > group to do a separate working group last callfor the BFD working > group > >The (BFD) working group last call was started on March 30th and ran for 13 days. The last call ended on April 11th. > > The authors have since worked hard to resolve comments, some > issue has been brought to the working group mailing list for > resolution. > > Version -04 of the document was published June 28th. > > The publication request for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi was sent > June 29th. > > The AD review resulted in a "New ID needed" due to mostly editorial > comments. Version -05 was published on June 29 and the IETF last call > started as soon as the new ID was avaialbe. > > The current list of Last Call Comments resoltion is also avaiable at: > http://www.pi.nu/~loa/cc-cv-rdi-Last-Call-Comments.xls > > The list of issues that the authors kept very carefully, shows without doubt > that no comments been ignored. > > Loa > mpls wg document shepherd > >On 2011-07-05 00:02, Rui Costa wrote: >> IMHO and for the record: >> >> ITU-T comments regarding this draft haven't been discussed with ITU-T but were simply ignored. No LS describing these comments' resolution was sent. >> >> Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their transport networks' needs. >> >> [The v03 draft was published in Feb and went to WG LC. >> The v04 draft addressing WG LC comments was published on the 28th June (same date as the proto write-up). >> When was the WG LC launched, to verify LC comments resolution?] >> >> Regards, >> Rui >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of The IESG >> Sent: quinta-feira, 30 de Junho de 2011 14:47 >> To: IETF-Announce >> Cc: mpls@ietf.org >> Subject: [mpls] Last Call:<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> >> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote >> Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard >> >> >> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching >> WG >> (mpls) to consider the following document: >> - 'Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote >> Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile' >> <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-07-14. Exceptionally, comments may >> be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> Abstract >> >> Continuity Check, Proactive Connectivity Verification and Remote >> Defect Indication functionalities are required for MPLS-TP OAM. >> >> Continuity Check monitors the integrity of the continuity of the >> label switched path for any loss of continuity defect. Connectivity >> verification monitors the integrity of the routing of the label >> switched path between sink and source for any connectivity issues. >> Remote defect indication enables an End Point to report, to its >> associated End Point, a fault or defect condition that it detects on >> a pseudo wire, label switched path or Section. >> >> This document specifies methods for proactive continuity check, >> continuity verification, and remote defect indication for MPLS-TP >> label switched paths, pseudo wires and Sections using Bidirectional >> Forwarding Detection. >> >> >> The file can be obtained via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi/ >> >> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > >-- > > >Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com >Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@pi.nu >Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 > +46 767 72 92 13 _______________________________________________ >mpls mailing list >mpls@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > >Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. > >This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. > >_______________________________________________ >mpls mailing list >mpls@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
