Subject: Comments on VCCV-01

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:18:43 -0500

Hi Tom:

A few comments in addition to those I've already posted on the list.

Section 3: Although the default behavior for LSP-PING is to sent the reply
over the return PW path, how to specifiy this is not explicitly mentioned.
The LSP-PING option "reply via application level control channel" looks to
be the closest but not quite. I'd suggest renaming the option "reply via
application specific channel" and mandating it's use in VCCV.

Section 3: VCCV as a means of negotiating OAM capabilities and hiding OAM
flows from ECMP seems to be getting blurred with the protocols in use. e.g.
that use of BFD is explicitly mentioned as "fault detection mode". I have
nothing against using BFD and LSP-PING, but describing protocol use as
"modes" seems to be an abuse of the english language. How about "The use of
BFD with VCCV provides a way to emulate..."

Section 6.1: Presume the OAM flag will be corrected to PW PID (actually has
ramifications throughout the document). I'd also like to see 1711 as an
option to the CV types field  (on the assumption the ITU will seek a PPP
DLL).

As a more general editorial comment, I am not entirely comfortable with the
language describing VCCV and what it does. It is continually described as a
"thing" when it simply uses the PW PID mechanism for multiplexing other
protocols over a PW and provides procedures for negotiating their use. So my
preference would be to see statements like "VCCV provides several means of
creating a control channel between PES that attaches the VC under test"
replaced with somthing I'd find more precise such as "VCCV uses LDP for MPLS
PWs to negotiate how OAM PDUs are multiplexed with the PW". If I am not
alone in this sentiment, I'll be glad to propose other text....

rgds
Dave

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:00:37 -0500

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I have
been working on 100 other things. :P

> application specific channel" and mandating it's use in VCCV.

	I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I have
modified the text a bit clearer. Please take a look at it
when it is out in the next day or so.

> "modes" seems to be an abuse of the english language. How 
> about "The use of BFD with VCCV provides a way to emulate..."

	I don't understand why you want to make the distinction
betweeen emulation of a detection mechanism or an actual detection
mechanism.

> Section 6.1: Presume the OAM flag will be corrected to PW PID 
> (actually has ramifications throughout the document). 

	Done.

> I'd also like to see 
> 1711 as an option to the CV types field  (on the assumption the 
> ITU will seek a PPP DLL).

	If the working group desires such a mode to be
added, then we can, but lets hear from the WG before we
do this. 

> PWs to negotiate how OAM PDUs are multiplexed with the PW". 
> If I am not alone in this sentiment, I'll be glad to propose other
text....

	I am not sure what you are getting at. Perhaps
if you could give some specific examples it might be
clearer.

	--Tom

> 
> rgds
> Dave
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>

---

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:00:44 -0500

> when it is out in the next day or so.

OK

> betweeen emulation of a detection mechanism or an actual 
> detection mechanism.

I'm more concerned with what VCCV actually is. IMHO it is a means of muxing
protocols with a PW in such a way that it is not considered by deployed ECMP
and some control plane extensions to negotiate what protocols are supported.
It is a minor nit, but I find the description rather grandiose vs. actual
reality.

> > (actually has ramifications throughout the document). 

Great.

> added, then we can, but lets hear from the WG before we

OK, Danny, Stuart.... (?) (!)

> if you could give some specific examples it might be

Again refers to how the text seems to inflate having a PW code point into a
"mode"...

Dave

---

From: Shahram Davari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:12:39 -0800

>added, then we can, but lets hear from the WG before we
 I am in favor of adding 1711 mode.

-Shahram

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:39:04 -0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Shahram Davari
> Sent: 29 January 2004 15:13
> To: [email-masked]'; 'David Allan'; [email-masked]
> Cc: 'Rahul Aggarwal'; 'Monique Morrow (mmorrow)'; 'George Swallow
> (swallow)'
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Comments on VCCV-01
> 
> 
> >> I'd also like to see 

NH=> I guess folks would not be surprised to hear we would like this too.

regards, Neil
BT/GS CTO

---

From: Peter Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:30:23 +0000

> >added, then we can, but lets hear from the WG before we

I too would like to see a 1711 mode added to the CV types field.

Peter Willis
Office of BT Group CTO.