Subject: Re: [Pals] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Sami Boutros <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:21:10 +0000

Hi Suresh,

Please see comments inline Sami:

Thanks,

Sami
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCUSS:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>* Section 7.3. mLDP Opaque Value Element TLV Type
>
>>From my reading of RFC6388, the "Value" in the TLV type is interpreted based on
>the type and this document does not seem to specify what goes into the value.
>
>Additionally, the document requests the type "0x3" but it looks like that type
>has been allocated already to "Transit IPv4 Source TLV type" as per
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_assignments_ldp-2Dnamespaces_ldp-2Dnamespaces.xhtml-23ldp-2Dnamespaces-2D11&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=0LSQMLgIPl0M2XLCtIeR82er0Db863W8zMS0pl09Xcs&s=1LS11GXksFnbRfsEqXtGlrV_q75c5_UuIl6yB-kkjhA&e= 
>

Sami:
I changed the section to the following:

  This document requires allocation of a new mLDP Opaque Value Element
   Type from "LDP MP Opaque Value Element basic type" name space defined
   in [RFC6388].

   The following value is suggested for assignment:

         TLV type  Description
           13      L2VPN-MCAST application TLV

         Length:  4

         Value:  A 32-bit integer, unique in the context of the root, as
         identified by the root's address.

Sami:

>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>* I think there is a typo in Figure 2.
>
>The "AII Type" field should be labeled "SAII Type" instead

Sami:

No, this is correct, attachment individual identifiers AII type 1 or type 2 identifies a SAII or a TAII.

Sami:

>* Why is the PW type referencing RFC4447 when the rest of the document refers
>solely to RFC4447bis? Is this intentional or a mistake?

Sami: Fixed.
>
>"* PW Type: 15 bits representation of PW type as specified in [RFC4447]."
>
>* The term "PMSI Tunnel info" is used without being defined and is required to
>calculate the length. I am guessing "PMSI Tunnel info" means the combination of
>PMSI Tunnel Type, Length and Transport LSP ID. If this is so, please make it
>explicit and define. If not, clarify.

Sami: Sure will say that in the next rev,

Thanks,

Sami

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:33:14 +0800

Hi Sami,
  Thanks for addressing by DISCUSS point and all but one of my COMMENT points. All of your resolutions work for me. I will clear based on that. One open item inline regarding my COMMENT 

> On Nov 13, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Sami Boutros <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> 

I understand your point but that is not what the figure describes. My request is for the figure to be consistent. If you want to use "AII type" then don’t label the value as "SAII value" as it may be a TAII value based on the AII type. Label it as “AII Value” or lock down the AII type to 2. I am not blocking on this and I leave it up to your discretion if you want to address this. 

Thanks
Suresh