Subject: [mpls-tp] Request comments about draft-zhang-mpls-tp-path-segment-monitoring-00

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:53:49 +0800

Hi all

We submmited a draft about the analysis of MPLS-TP path segment 
monitoring, the link as follow

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-mpls-tp-path-segment-monitoring-00

It addressed the gaps of MBB and provided another solution based on the 
local rerouting, another thing is that we give another solution
based TTL TLV to meet the requirements of temporal and hitless path 
segment monitoring, see the following documents

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-01

Any comments are welcome

The authors

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:14:31 -0400

Having read this draft, I don¹t see the point of it being a stand-alone
document as it is informational in its nature, and most of these
observations are well-understood just perhaps not written down explicitly.
It seems that the observations described herein could perhaps be better
placed within other TP-related documents.

    --Tom

On 7/29/10 7:53 AM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Hi all 
> 
> We submmited a draft about the analysis of MPLS-TP path segment monitoring,
> the link as follow
> 
> It addressed the gaps of MBB and provided another solution based on the local
> rerouting, another thing is that we give another solution
> based TTL TLV to meet the requirements of temporal and hitless path segment
> monitoring, see the following documents
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:02:02 +0800

Hi Thomas

Thanks for your comments

I give three solutions in this document and related presentation 
materials.

(1)MBB is described in RFC5921, but the coordination mechanisms SHOULD 
exist, which needs the extension to the signaling protocol.
(2)Local rerouting is the new solution not described in any other document 
(RFC4090 only describe the unidirectional LSP)
(3)TTL-TLV is introduced in draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-01, but is 
only used for LSP ping. Here we enlarged the scope to other OAMs such as 
PM loss/delay and diagnostic test. Of course, MEP ID can be carried to 
realize the same function.

Yeah, I agree with you that this document is informational in its 
nature(this will be revised in the next version), but there should need 
one document to clarify or describe the potential schemes and necessary 
procedures clearly if they are not described in other documents. 

What do you think?

My 2 cents

Fei ;)

"Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]> 
2010-07-29 21:14

收件人
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
抄送
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
主题
Re: [mpls-tp] Request comments about 
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-path-segment-monitoring-00

    Having read this draft, I don’t see the point of it being a 
stand-alone document as it is informational in its nature, and most of 
these observations are well-understood just perhaps not written down 
explicitly. It seems that the observations described herein could perhaps 
be better placed within other TP-related documents.

    --Tom

Hi all 

Any comments are welcome 

The authors