Re: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt (MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing) to Proposed Standard

Hi, I don't see any TLVs defined for performing the on-demand CV operation on MPLS -TP Sections. Is this intentional? and Co-routed bidirectional tunnel identifier: A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID:: Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num Associated bidirectional tunnel

Re: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt (MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing) to Proposed Standard

Eric, Don't you feel that uniformity should be maintained on AGI field representation for on-demand and proactive OAM operations? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AGI Type| AGI Length | AGI Value|

RE: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt (MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing) to Proposed Standard

Hi, I have made this comment before, I just want to make sure it is not lost. This draft is proposing a way to specify the length of sub-TLVs that is inconsistent with RFC 4379. I believe it would be better to align this with 4379 as the draft is updating it and I see no technical reason why