Subject: [mpls] FW: Comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-02

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:50:08 -0500

Forwarding in plain text...

________________________________

From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 6:03 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [mpls] Comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-02

Eric,

Can I propose a solution based on the idea that RFC 6370 contains adequate 
description of what is included in RFC 6370? 

Don't spend time in your I-D describing what is in RFC 6370. Thus:

OLD

   RFC 6370 [RFC6370] defines a set of MPLS-TP transport and management
   entity identifiers to support bidirectional (co-routed and
   associated) point-to-point MPLS-TP LSPs, including PWs and Sections
   which follow the IP/MPLS conventions.

NEW

   RFC 6370 [RFC6370] defines a set of MPLS-TP transport and management
   entity identifiers that follow the IP/MPLS conventions.

END

Can I also use this email to question the text in the very next paragraph? You have

   This document specifies an alternative way to uniquely identify an
   operator/service provider based on ITU-T conventions and specifies
   how this operator/service provider identifier can be used to make the
   existing set of MPLS-TP transport and management entity identifiers,
   defined by RFC 6370 [RFC6370], globally unique.

My concern is mainly with "and specifies...make the existing...globally unique". 
There is an implication in this that the identifiers in RFC 6370 are somehow 
incapable of being globally unique, whereas the Global_ID of RFC 6370 is globally 
unique. 

I would also note that your I-D continues to make use of some identifiers from 
RFC 6370, but this text implies the I-D is an entirely alternative approach. 

Can I suggest:

OLD

   This document specifies an alternative way to uniquely identify an
   operator/service provider based on ITU-T conventions and specifies
   how this operator/service provider identifier can be used to make the
   existing set of MPLS-TP transport and management entity identifiers,
   defined by RFC 6370 [RFC6370], globally unique.

NEW

   This document specifies an alternative way to construct MPLS-TP
   identifiers replacing some elements of the identifiers defined in 
   RFC 6370 [RFC6370] with objects following current ITU-T identifier
   conventions.

END

Cheers,

Adrian

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric Gray
Sent: 11 November 2011 11:32
To: Gregory Mirsky
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-02

Greg,

        This draft is only interested in addressing identifiers associated 
with bi-directional LSP - at least at present.  RFC 6370 does define 
identifiers that can be used for this case, that are based on IP/MPLS 
conventions.  So the statement is accurate.

        However, we could try to make it clearer that we're not saying that 
RFC 6370 is limited to the bi-directional case.  The difficulty lies in trying 
to make this clearer without complicating the text with information that is 
not relevant to this draft.

        For example, if we explicily state that RFC 6370 includes support for 
IP/MPLS based identifiers for unidirectional LSPs, we would also need to 
explicitly state that this type of identifier either doesn't apply to this 
document, or is out of scope.  In general, I don't think it is necessarily a 
good idea to add text to a document that then makes it necessary to add 
additional text to clarify that the previously added text is out of scope in 
the document. 

        Perhaps you can suggest wording that makes the fact that RFC 6370 does
not limit identifiers to the bi-directional case clearer, without making it 
necessary to then add that this document is limited in this respect?

--
Eric
_____________________________________________ 

From:    Gregory Mirsky  
Sent:   Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:03 PM
To:     [email-masked]; Eric Gray; [email-masked]; 
	  [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:        Comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-02
Importance:     High

Dear Authors, et al.,

I have a question about the scope of the document. Introduction references only 
bi-directional LSPs in "RFC 6370 [RFC6370] defines a set of MPLS-TP transport 
and management entity identifiers to support bidirectional (co-routed and 
associated) point-to-point MPLS-TP LSPs ..." I think that RFC 6370 implicitly 
defines ID for p2p unidirectional LSP as well in the following format:

A1-Node_ID::A1-Tunnel_Num::Z9-LSP_Num::Z9-Node_ID

or if globally unique LSP ID required

A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num

        Regards,

        Greg

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:19:31 -0800

Dear Adrian,
text you've proposed addresses my concern.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Eric Gray <[email-masked]> wrote:

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