Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:10:45 +0000

Working Group(s),

This is to start a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08.

Please send your comments to the CCAMP WG mailing list.

This working group last call ends July 24th.

Deborah (and Lou)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:27:28 +0800

Hi Deborah

Comments from my side according to the link 
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08.txt 

Line 94, As a reference here ,RFC3473 is better than RFC3209?  See the 
descripiton in section 1.2 4) of RFC6373

Line 98, MPLS OAM SHOULD be MPLS-TP OAM? Since the title is for 
configuring MPLS-TP OAM

Line 108-109, T-LDP can be not mentioned here since this draft are 
focusing on the LSP

Line 111, Three should be changed to four since FMS is also MPLS-TP OAM 
function.

Line 187, Locked should be change to lock according to RFC6427

Linde 190, CSF should be addressed or deleted since this draft is ready 
for last call, not say that for further study in the context of this 
document.

Line 206, There is no need to talk about LSP Ping here since the following 
section (like line 213 ) said "forward the RSVP-TE
          message"

Line 257, For integrity, shoud be  Delay, Delay variation (jitter) and 
Throughput?

Line 265, The title should be changed since this section describes not 
only FMS, but aslo performance measurement. Alternatively,
          line 267-279 should be moved into section 3.1.2

Line 269, Throughput is not proactive OAM fucntion according RFC6371

Line 290, IMHO since "OAM Configuration TLV" is defined in the other 
document, the figure should not appear here.

Line 368,  As discussed in the mailinglist when polling the draft
 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03, 
the tunnel number assigned by the egress
           LER should be carried back. This issue can be addressed here or 
in that or other document, but I am afraid the current description
           needs to be changed.

Line 383-385 This section should be deleted for last call

Line 579  Throughput belongs to on-demand OAM function...

Line 763   Locked should be lock

Best regards

Fei

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2012-07-11 03:10

收件人
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
抄送
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
主题
[CCAMP] WG Last Call draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08

Working Group(s),

This is to start a Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08.

Deborah (and Lou)

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

---

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:35:23 +0000

This WG Last Call has ended.

Authors, please address the comments.

Thanks,
Deborah and Lou

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:11 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-08

*** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***.
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.

Working Group(s),

Deborah (and Lou)

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