Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:26:18 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using LSP Ping
	Author(s)       : Elisa Bellagamba
                          Loa Andersson
                          Pontus Skoldstrom
                          Dave Ward
                          John Drake
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-05.txt
	Pages           : 22
	Date            : 2013-01-10

Abstract:
   This specification describes the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP
   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a
   given LSP using a set of TLVs that are carried by the LSP-Ping
   protocol.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-05

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:12:19 +0000

I think that this still needs more work (well, I thought so
in September 2011 and do even more so now:-).

a) RFC6427 and RFC6428 seem to have been lost from the references.

b) BFD is attributed with the ability to track liveliness whereas BFD
itself only claims to monitor liveness.

c) IANA and Security Considerations would be better highlighted as
sections in their own right rather than as subsections.  This has
changed recently but not for the better.

d)  IANA Considerations fails to say which registries are being updated.

More fundamentally, can the idea ever work?  If protocol X needs
configuring in order to use it, can it be configured by protocol X?  We
do not, for example, configure IP with options in IP; rather, we use
BOOTP or DHCP.  I think that this issue needs much more consideration
than it gets.  When is the configuration sent vis-a-vis other PDU? can
it be changed at any time?  what happens to operations in progress when
it changes?  what does it mean to configure these operations, some of
which at least seem atomic and stateless for which configuration seems a
little odd?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:26 PM
Subject: [mpls] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-05.txt

> Title           : Configuration of Pro-Active Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport
Networks using LSP Ping
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-co
nf
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-co
nf-05
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>