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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Per conto di Loa
Andersson
Inviato: mercoledì 6 luglio 2011 17:44
A: Rui Costa
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of The IESG
> Sent: quinta-feira, 30 de Junho de 2011 14:47
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: [email protected]
> 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
> [email protected] mailing lists by 2011-07-14. Exceptionally, comments may
> be sent to [email protected] 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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager [email protected]
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email protected]
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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
