Subject: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-05

From: Quintin Zhao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:29:44 -0400

Dear WG, 

We submitted a new version of our draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-05. A summary
of updates is provided below:

- Addressed OAM issue raised by Pranjal. Out solution is to define two new
FEC types for LSP ping.

- Added a section on Operation Considerations. 

- Fixed minor NITS and formatting. 

The authors believe the document is now stable and would request that those
interested in the work review the document so we can prepare for WG Last
Call. Unless we see objections we also plan to move the Appendix, which
covers use cases, into the MT LDP Applicability draft. 

Thanks,

Quintin.

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:57:31 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Quintin Zhao" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:29 PM

> - Addressed OAM issue raised by Pranjal. Out solution is to define two
new

There is a wrinkle associated with the sub-TLVs for Type 1 TLV, namely
that these get reused for other top level TLVs, such as Type 21 (reply
path specified).

With the benefit of hindsight, RFC4379 could have split the available
numeric range of sub-TLVs into common ones, likely to be used with
multiple TLVs, and TLV-specific ones, likely to be used with just one
TLV; but it didn't.  This topic is currently live, following the AD
review of draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping, the outcome of
which could (should!) impact this I-D; do your new sub-TLVs apply solely
to Type 1 TLV or also to the others which 'inherit' the sub-TLVs of Type
1, such as Type 21?.

Tom Petch