Subject: [CCAMP] Fwd: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-05

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:29:16 -0700

Sorry, wrong address was originally used.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:27 PM
Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-05
To: Attila Takacs <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

Dear Authors and All,
please kindly consider my comments to the document:

   - in the Introduction OAM interpreted as "Operations and Management".
   Though it is one of possible interpretations of the popular abbreviation the
   "Operation, Administration, and Maintenance" is recommended by
   draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-07. "Operations and Management" might be
   abbreviated as OaMgmt.
   - Section 3, para 4 potential typo - "s\derived form some\derived from
   some\"
   - Section 4.1 RE: setting of "OAM MIP entities desired". Only setting of
   this flag in the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object discussed in the document. I
   think that the "OAM MIP entities desired" can be set in LSP_ATTRIBUTES even
   if "OAM MEP entities desired" is set in LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and
   not in LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object. As result, no error will be generated if any
   LSR doesn't support MIP functions.
   - Section 4.2 RE: use of OAM Configuration TLV. The text on p.14 "Only
   when that is set MAY an "OAM Configuration TLV" be included in the
   LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object" might be interpreted as if
   the OAM Configuration TLV can be included into either one of objects. I
   think that this is not the case and, in fact, both objects might be present
   and each have OAM Configuration TLV. If that's the case, then "s\or\and/or\"
   might be acceptable to clarify.
   - Section 4.2.1 I think that another bit to signify support of Fault
   Management can be defined in the document and use bit #4 for that.

Regards,
Greg