Subject: [mpls] Poll on draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:26:41 +0100

Working Group,

this is to start a two week poll to see if there is support to make

    draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-04

mpls working group drafts.

Pleased send your comments to the mpls working group mailing list
([email-masked]).

This poll ends February 22, 2012!

Loa
for the mpls wg chairs

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:37:33 +0200

Yes/support.

Regards,
     Sasha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Loa Andersson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-
> [email-masked]; Ross Callon; George Swallow; Adrian Farrel
> Subject: [mpls] Poll on draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:12:52 +0800

Hi 

One comment:

I do not think the descriptions in section 5 are accurate:
"Packet loss and packet delay measurements are OAM functions in which 
hitless and temporal segment monitoring are strongly required because 
these functions are supported only between end points of a transport 
path."

For according to the descriptive scopes at the section 2.9.5 of RFC6374, 
the packet loss and delay measurement functions are not strictly limited 
only between endpoints: 
"In the case of an LSP, it may be desirable to measure the loss or delay 
to or from an intermediate node as well as between LSP endpoints.  This 
can be done in principle by setting the Time to Live (TTL) field in the 
outer LSE appropriately when targeting a measurement message to an 
intermediate node".

Since this is a requirement document and if the inaccuracy does not affect 
this document, please count "yes/support" from me to support this 
adoption.

Regards

Fei

Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2012-02-08 21:26

收件人
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, MPLS-TP ad hoc team 
<[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]>, Ross Callon 
<[email-masked]>, George Swallow <[email-masked]>, Adrian Farrel 
<[email-masked]>
抄送

主题
[mpls] Poll on draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm

Working Group,

Loa
for the mpls wg chairs

--

---

From: Yoshinori Koike <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:15:46 +0900

Hello Fei,

Thank you for your comment.

This description is based on MPLS=TP OAM requirements specified in 
section 2.2.11 and 2.2.12 of RFC5860. We will add the following 
information in the sentence for clarification when updating the draft, 
if this works for you.

"... because these functions are supported only between end points of a 
transport path according to RFC5860."

Best regards,

Yoshinori

(2012/02/09 11:12), [email-masked] wrote:
> Loa Andersson<[email-masked]>
> "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>, MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> <[email-masked]>, George Swallow<[email-masked]>, Adrian Farrel
> <[email-masked]>
> 抄送
>
> 主题

-- 
Yoshinori Koike
[email-masked]

---

From: Rolf Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:02:01 +0000

Yes/support.

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 

> Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2012 14:27

---

From: HUANG Feng F <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:51:28 +0000

Yes/support

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: 2012年2月8日 21:27
To: [email-masked]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; [email-masked]; Ross Callon; George Swallow; Adrian Farrel
Subject: [mpls] Poll on draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm

Working Group,

Loa
for the mpls wg chairs

--

---

From: "Satoshi UENO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:10:04 +0900

Yes/support.

Best Regards,
Satoshi

> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team;
> [email-masked]; Ross Callon;
> George Swallow; Adrian Farrel
> Subject: Poll on draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm
> 
> Working Group,
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:11:35 +0900

Yes/support.

BR,
Hideki

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:12:05 +0100

Support!

Regards, Huub.

=============

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:08:33 +0900

Yes/Support.

Regards,
Masahiko

---

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:52:27 +0100

Yes/Support

-----Original Message-----
ext Loa Andersson

Working Group,

Loa
for the mpls wg chairs

--

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:33:11 +0100

Yes/support

-----Original Message-----

Working Group,

Loa
for the mpls wg chairs

--

---

From: "Zhenlong Cui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:52:57 +0900

Yes/support.

I would like to raise some comments regarding section 6.

I think performance monitoring is different from the survivability analysis, as it has a certain time-dependent behavior. Therefore,
I think the on-demand single-level segment monitoring must "timely coordinate" with the other levels that include the pro-active
end-to-end monitoring.
 
I suggest adding some description to section 6 along these lines:

   In order to increase the accuracy of performance monitoring,
   on-demand multi-level performance monitoring must have the ability to
   execute at all levels at the same time.

Best Regards,
zhenlong

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:17:31 +0100

Support (as a co-author).

Thanks,
Manuel

> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:27 PM

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:52:23 -0500

Yes/support.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:46:25 +0100

All,

this poll has been running for some time, according the process the
wg chair outlined in a recent mail it should have been preceded
by a mail reminding about IPRs. We didn't have that process really
in place when the poll was started. So here comes the IPR remeinder.

As you can see from the poll the wg chairs have sent out the authors
have asked for draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm to be
considered for adoption as a WG document. We would like to check
whether there is IPR on the document that needs to be disclosed.
We will weigh this in when we judge the consensus on the call for
adoption.

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-
hitless-psm? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF 
IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to 
this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until a response 
has been received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or 
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any 
IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

/Loa

(as MPLS WG co-chair)

--

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:23:37 +0100

Hi,

I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm.

Best Regards
Manuel (co-author)

> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:46 PM
> Subject: [mpls] Addition on this poll - the IPR aspect (Was Re: Poll on
> draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm)
>
> All,
>

---

From: Yoshinori Koike <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:24:40 +0900

Hi Zhenlong,

Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry for this late reply.

As we wrote in the same section, a combination of multi-level and 
"simultaneous monitoring" is the most powerful tool for accurately 
diagnosing the performance of a transport path.

However I think it's better to add some texts for clarification in the 
section. We will refine the section using your proposed text next time 
we update the draft.

Editors already discussed the necessity of simultaneity of multi-level 
HPSMs before. The following is just a reference information.

Our fist priority is to request a tool to diagnose a degraded point 
without affecting transport path. From that perspective, a single-level 
HPSM is mandatory.

Secondly, multi-level HPSMs can make the detection of a degraded point 
more efficient. Therefore, it is an option in the current draft.

In addition, the simultaneity of multi-level HPSMs is related to an 
accuracy of the measurements which can make the detection much more 
efficient. Therefore, it is also an option. (I understand that it is not 
clear in the texts.)

Best regards,

Yoshinori

---

From: Yoshinori Koike <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:25:44 +0900

Hi,

I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-
hitless-psm.

Best regards,

Yoshinori(co-author)

---

From: "Satoshi UENO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:22:25 +0900

All,

I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm.

Best regards,
Satoshi(co-author)

> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:46 AM
> Subject: Addition on this poll - the IPR aspect (Was Re: [mpls] Poll on
> this poll has been running for some time, according the process the wg
chair
> outlined in a recent mail it should have been preceded by a mail reminding
> about IPRs. We didn't have that process really in place when the poll was
> started. So here comes the IPR remeinder.
> 
> As you can see from the poll the wg chairs have sent out the authors have
> asked for draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm to be considered for
> adoption as a WG document. We would like to check whether there is IPR on
> the document that needs to be disclosed.
adoption.
> this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
> This document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been
> received from each author and contributor.
>