Subject: [mpls] wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault-03

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:36:47 +0100

Working Group,

this is to start a four week working group last call
on "MPLS Fault Management OAM" (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault-03).

Please send comments to the [email-masked] mailing list.

This working group last call ends on February 28, 2011.

Loa, George and Ross

MPLS wg co-chairs

--

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: g67564 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:51:40 +0800

Dear authors

After read the document, I have a question about the FM massage procedure.

In the section 5.1, the third paragraph, it said "The message is then sent.
The message MUST be refreshed two more times at an interval of one second.
Further refreshes are sent according to the value of the refresh timer."  I
don't know why the refreshing massage must be first sent two more times in
one second and then sent as the refresh timer interval.  Is it ok if the
refreshing massage is sent only according to the value of the refresh timer?
If it is not, what problem may be introduced? Hope authors could explain it
for me.

In addition, figure 2 is about the fault management massage format, so I
think naming the figure" MPLS-TP fault Management Message Format " other
than" MPLS-TP OAM Message Format " is more suitable.

Best Regards
Xinchun

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa
Andersson
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 7:37 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Ross Callon; [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault-03

Working Group,

Loa, George and Ross

MPLS wg co-chairs

--

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: Xinchun Guo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:39:22 +0800

Dear authors

Best Regards
Xinchun

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 7:37 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls-tp] wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault-03

Working Group,

Loa, George and Ross

MPLS wg co-chairs

--

_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---

From: Xinchun Guo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:52:08 +0800

Other 3 edit comments, see below.

1.section 2.2, there is overlapping between the last sentence of the first
paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph about " The purpose
of the LKR message is to suppress alarms in the MPLS-TP layer network above
the level at which the defect occurs" . Simplify it will be more smart.

2.section 4.1.2, the first sentence" This TLV carries the Interface
Identifier as defined ......", "the Interface Identifier" should be "the
Global Identifier". right?

3. section 5.3, there are two "that" in the first sentence, one is
redundancy.

Regards
Xinchun

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Xinchun Guo
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 9:39 AM
To: 'Loa Andersson'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault-03

Dear authors

Best Regards
Xinchun

-----Original Message-----

Working Group,

Loa, George and Ross

MPLS wg co-chairs

--

---

From: Xinchun Guo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:09:56 +0800

Hi authors and all

About this document, I have another question expect to be clarification. I
am not very clear about the specific application of Fault management
message.

In section 2 of this document, it said " Fault OAM messages are generated by
intermediate nodes where an LSP is switched".  Does it mean that the fault
message can only be used for alarm suppress of LSP layer?  Could not this
fault management function be used for PW layer, especially for the MS-PW
conditions.  Take the following hiberarchy scenario for example, PW1 and PW2
are two segments of the MS-PW which is client of the LSP layer.  if the
server layer of LSP fails, such as Link1, node2 will initiate AIS message
and sent it to LSP1 end point node3.  As MS-PW is client of LSP1, for this
condition, whether Node3 will further initiate Fault management message to
MS-PW end point Node4 to notify the failure of LSP1 to suppress alarm of the
end to end pw service.  IMO, Fault management function should cover these PW
conditions.

-                        MS-PW                   -
-                           +---------AIS/LKR-------------->>-
-<-----------------PW1-------------------->|-----------------PW2------------
>-
-              +----AIS/LKR---->>                     -
-<-------LSP1---------+-------------------><--------------LSP2--------------
->-
-              |AIS/LKR                            -
-<--- Link1---------->|<---
Link2------><--------Link3--------------------->-
Node1       Node2       Node3                Node4

Hope authors could clarify this point and detail the Fault function process
about PW scenarios in this document.

Best Regards
Xinchun

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 5:52 PM

Regards
Xinchun

-----Original Message-----

Dear authors

Best Regards
Xinchun

-----Original Message-----

Working Group,

Loa, George and Ross

MPLS wg co-chairs

--