Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] New version of draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback-01

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:12:35 +0100

Sami,

I think it is to late to publish, but I put the draft at:

http://www.tla-group.com/~loa/draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback-01.txt

it is your choice whether you want to notify the mpls wg maling
list or not. I guess it would be good, since I updated the
agenda :)

/Loa

Sami Boutros wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is an updated version that we need to post.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sami

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                           [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop

---

From: David Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:02:54 -0600

Here is another version of the Loopback draft that includes non- 
instrusive operation. Please send comments if we are closer to the  
desired operation.

Thanks

-DWard

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Sami Boutros <[email-masked]>
> Date: November 5, 2008 9:48:09 PM CST
> To: [email-masked], Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: George Swallow <[email-masked]>, "Siva Sivabalan (msiva)"  
> <[email-masked]>, David Ward <[email-masked]>, Rahul Aggarwal  
> <[email-masked]>
> Subject: New version of draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback-01
>
> Hi,
>
> Sami￼

---

From: "Bitar, Nabil N." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:34:30 -0500

Hi Dave,

Just a couple of editorials:

1-       Section 4.10 bullet 2, the sentence needs to be reqorded. I
think it is a cut and paste issue

2-       Section 5, the bullet numbering just before section 6 needs to
be corrected. I think what is now bullet d and the bullet below it
should be merget.

Other than that, a few comments in addition to the comments I embedded
in the doc I sent earlier:

1-Probably it is better semantically to refer to the return values as
such response values or .. rather than error code. Some of these values
are really not errors

2.  Is a mechanism for TTL value determination out of scope in here, or
the assumption is that it is administratively set for a loopback message
and it is derived by some means that is out of scope to talk about here.
Few words about path change impact on TTL is good.

3. Locking and FLB are still not clear to me. It seems to me that if one
wants to do FLB, the LSP should be put out of service (i.e., lock the
LPS). If it is the case, I would suggest that be worded as such.

I  think this version is more streamlined than the previous one.

Tanks,

Nabil

________________________________

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of David Ward
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:03 AM
To: MEAD team
Cc: Sami Boutros; Siva Sivabalan (msiva)
Subject: [Mpls-interop] Loopback draft with updates

Here is another version of the Loopback draft that includes
non-instrusive operation. Please send comments if we are closer to the
desired operation. 

Thanks

-DWard

Begin forwarded message:

Hi,

Thanks,

Sami