Subject: [mpls] a few comments for draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-01

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:25:02 +0800

hi,both
  today i reivew this draft, In my mind, there need a few question to be 
clarified for this draft .
1 for BFD Configuration sub-TLV, I only see  MPLS OAM SOURCE MEP-ID 
sub-TLV based on per-node MEP;
  if considing of per-interface MEP , is it necessary to add the field for 
the interface?

2 for MPLS OAM PM Delay sub-TLV, I personally think that it is unnecessary 
to have E or C flag
  for DM function like PM Loss sub-TLV. but in section 3.2.3, there is the 
context of Configuration Flags including
  E or C flag.

3 for MPLS OAM FMS sub-TLV, In my mind, LDI is only flag bit in the AIS 
packet. so 
  the Refresh timer of LDI should be the same as one of AIS. I think it is 
unnecessary to 
  have D Flag bit in the format of FMS sub-TLV?

it is only personally understanding , do i miss something important?

B.R.
liu 

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.