From nobody Wed Mar 1 03:44:19 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEB6129508 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:44:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WXtYSifSwvU5 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CCB7129990 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:44:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 7646 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2017 12:44:02 +0100 Received: from pd9e11f3b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (217.225.31.59) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 1 Mar 2017 12:44:02 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C9279358B0C4@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:44:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0AB3638E-E420-4C2F-B70F-E844BAF17B42@kuehlewind.net> References: <148829989956.29494.7224618792577082144.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C9279358B0C4@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Cc: "stewart.bryant@gmail.com" , "pals-chairs@ietf.org" , The IESG , "draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination@ietf.org" , "pals@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pals] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05=3A_=28with_COMMENT?= =?utf-8?q?=29?= X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:44:06 -0000 Hi Jie, thanks for your clarification. Maybe it=E2=80=99s worth adding a few = more words for point 2 and 3 in the draft to make it crystal clear. = Please do whatever you think is right. Mirja > Am 01.03.2017 um 07:50 schrieb Dongjie (Jimmy) : >=20 > Hi Mirja,=20 >=20 > Thanks a lot for your comments. Please see my replies inline. >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mirja K=C3=BChlewind [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 12:38 AM >> To: The IESG >> Cc: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination@ietf.org; = Stewart Bryant >> ; pals-chairs@ietf.org; >> stewart.bryant@gmail.com; pals@ietf.org >> Subject: Mirja K=C3=BChlewind's No Objection on >> draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05: (with COMMENT) >>=20 >> Mirja K=C3=BChlewind has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05: No Objection >>=20 >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all = email >> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this = introductory >> paragraph, however.) >>=20 >>=20 >> Please refer to = https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>=20 >>=20 >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coord= inati >> on/ >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >> Minor mostly editorial comments: >>=20 >> 1) When I first saw "DHC Code Point" in figure 2, I was slightly = confused >> because this doesn't show in the rest of the doc anymore. Maybe = rename to >> 'DHC channel type' or use the same term in the text or directly put = the value in >> there that will be assigned by IANA. >=20 > Thanks for pointing out this. Will change this to "DHC Channel Type" = in next revision.=20 >>=20 >> 2) 3.1.:"After the transmission of the three messages, the >> dual-homing PE MUST send the most recently transmitted Dual-Node >> Switching TLV periodically to the other dual-homing PE on a = continual >> basis using the DHC message." >> This is only if the protection is active, right? >=20 > Yes, the switching TLV is sent periodically after the protection is in = active.=20 >=20 >>=20 >> 3) 3.2.:"Whenever a change of service PW status is detected by a = dual-homing >> PE, it MUST be reflected in the PW Status TLV and sent to the other >> dual-homing PE immediately using the 3 consecutive DHC messages. >> This way, both dual-homing PEs have the status of the working and >> protection PW consistently." >> Note, it's possible that all three messages get lost. If you want = to make >> sure you stay in sync, you need an explicit mechanism for = reliability, e.g. >> sending an ack. >=20 > The 3 consecutive message mechanism is similar to the mechanism = defined in section 4.1 of rfc6378 (MPLS-TP linear protection). It can = ensure the state exchange if one or two of the 3 messages get lost. And = after the 3 consecutive messages, the message will still be transmitted = continuously as defined in section 3.1 of this draft, so the dual-homing = PEs would stay in sync.=20 >=20 > Best regards, > Jie From nobody Wed Mar 1 04:02:31 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5539512952B; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 04:02:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148836975034.6140.6652848304947184596.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 04:02:30 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org Subject: [Pals] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection-05=3A_=28with_COMMENT?= =?utf-8?q?=29?= X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:02:30 -0000 Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this document is clearly only informational (regarding the question in the shepherd write-up). However, I actually think this document is not needed as companion document for draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination because draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination is self-explanatory enough. If published, I would recommend to remove the word framework and only talk about scenarios because it don't think this document defines a framework. From nobody Wed Mar 1 04:05:25 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB03126FDC; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 04:05:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148836992044.6292.270939446061109870.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 04:05:20 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stewart.bryant@gmail.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org Subject: [Pals] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05=3A_=28with_COMMENT?= =?utf-8?q?=29?= X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:05:20 -0000 Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry one more editorial comment: - In section 3.1 it would be good to further clarify what's meant by 'local request or a remote request', especially when and who is doing the remote request? Minor mostly editorial comments: 1) When I first saw "DHC Code Point" in figure 2, I was slightly confused because this doesn't show in the rest of the doc anymore. Maybe rename to 'DHC channel type' or use the same term in the text or directly put the value in there that will be assigned by IANA. 2) 3.1.:"After the transmission of the three messages, the dual-homing PE MUST send the most recently transmitted Dual-Node Switching TLV periodically to the other dual-homing PE on a continual basis using the DHC message." This is only if the protection is active, right? 3) 3.2.:"Whenever a change of service PW status is detected by a dual-homing PE, it MUST be reflected in the PW Status TLV and sent to the other dual-homing PE immediately using the 3 consecutive DHC messages. This way, both dual-homing PEs have the status of the working and protection PW consistently." Note, it's possible that all three messages get lost. If you want to make sure you stay in sync, you need an explicit mechanism for reliability, e.g. sending an ack. From nobody Wed Mar 1 14:56:35 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AC9127735; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:56:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ben Campbell To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148840899333.7123.6565224859009364068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:56:33 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: stewart.bryant@gmail.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org Subject: [Pals] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 22:56:33 -0000 Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Just a couple of editorial comments: - Abstract: The parenthetical phrase " (management plane based)" makes the sentence structure more confusing that if the phrase were simply removed. - Section 1: A few abbreviations that were expanded in the abstract should be expanded again in the body. From nobody Thu Mar 2 00:27:42 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7661294AF; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:27:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j2wkcvJ4O-7O; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:27:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483FF1294AE; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:27:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939BC2D00A; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:27:35 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KioYp2niK7uX; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:27:35 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185402D009; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:27:35 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FDAFC0E7-C3DE-4EF9-9B27-5EEDF8B1E7AD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <148703306292.22169.5868946919175397612.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:27:35 +0200 Message-Id: <30646B2F-06BC-44CD-A020-9521F47491C5@piuha.net> References: <148703306292.22169.5868946919175397612.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Jouni Korhonen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Gen art , pals@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pals] [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:27:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FDAFC0E7-C3DE-4EF9-9B27-5EEDF8B1E7AD Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jouni, Weiqiang, Thanks for the review and for considering the comments. Jari --Apple-Mail=_FDAFC0E7-C3DE-4EF9-9B27-5EEDF8B1E7AD Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYt9d3AAoJEM80gCTQU46qayEP/37RX1NV1xQDvbObBpYdFd0F s4XYpz4CgxjU9o4Tkc6W52K7oATojrz6iPo+Sxu6zplBiC2+hdNP1uKtao/Gau4z vA2sQf2ydMk6kiOwi2fnAMF//HvqBnaZnNoVhbhgNRoTxCMTgrw/B9rL5EzesO/9 It+1hMzAcfidkOh2laML8YxByqKzWi3AUwJ5egMGrEGF8lK5wVD1uoukfhsXeELa 1Sc0bY2hAv7m6V6Yv4p4cKNcTif+lMP6mK3F4LCJxY6LpBOYa7sPdn4wbcmETMwS Wmyg7kedGoxpji1m+YBc71fCPICJcoYUCe6IvFYNvjr6vp69szSQ7IBgUWMbAy9P 2lRgNY/pSWRUZY0Jj7Og54Ie0k6AYn26CBeCAkgceRLcCR8f2lo1VjHYQyFsyYHp XvsRKu++lMpqMIfS62+VkigNx+skcNkXui9L20+pZnxA7iSsNVHDgPOAQTk/oV3L 97LxYfeIsa/2UFwLzPaxr/NmwnmhMCIovMEtfuMAzkNDjMvujEQkPHio0wBPCiO5 AiDAElSOXvk+h+C5biuOpCtS+LoU5j4EKeMSs4TNH1bOaK9HqHDU7u4PDn3YBTpe BIQOjI7KGpHXl1bdC8G8uUsGffs1eiZQXCIxFHExUHOkuB1J0tmLWCoOSrNp0xNG K7DDObkciLM9wVcKmv8M =MCox -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_FDAFC0E7-C3DE-4EF9-9B27-5EEDF8B1E7AD-- From nobody Thu Mar 2 03:10:10 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8062A1297BE; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 03:10:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0e7nW2wg2sUy; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 03:10:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3556E1296F5; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 03:10:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5522D00A; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:09:35 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VrdH_rBkYevQ; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:09:34 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB552D009; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:09:34 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FAA8EE8D-1B34-49C7-A5A4-F56A483FEBE1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <148649120072.19411.7489137402403290375.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:09:32 +0200 Message-Id: <432DDCC1-4649-4F3E-A84C-40C66B5E854D@piuha.net> References: <148649120072.19411.7489137402403290375.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Russ Housley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection.all@ietf.org, Gen art , pals@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pals] Review of draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection-05 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 11:10:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FAA8EE8D-1B34-49C7-A5A4-F56A483FEBE1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks for your review, Russ. Jari --Apple-Mail=_FAA8EE8D-1B34-49C7-A5A4-F56A483FEBE1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYt/1tAAoJEM80gCTQU46qleoP/0KNAGP0JZGjlqMCE8TdfjdK twX9CzOALuqOdmvkQujIVzgDTu8H4uTfw4KKBVOJDJ3D3rwMMkPZKG5Tlik1IFRH xmXcQcAvugL6g6r6IZmh9njlR2jIYuwZ9jE50E8sKakjHALWllwtgb30IPiPE/DZ jBip00RurpA22FWDN0IL3V4mlI1nrbWD0YPTBoZDHuhXk+9fFbkYWEpdEv1uvHGE ZUp1HJVIKzHQ/EHezwFKcHIajiSJWhj/IVQ/jG3WA/LYesHOx5uYHDJqDuaHJIBI PTu2gtMiqCtJcC12/wqPshZjz07ZxdS7LLONUmUsTf7MVgpbpRtawZgrL75vIHuV TSTegnADKEjG3gbOLdNncI07HwDCw6VsUNkrMpuIZcst4KPCMCsZMhmADCE229R0 Jdj6Jwrm8ukGYACsqBXhfqgl8Dy5Yg9Tckrc874Eo9vGHE6YmBqO47bpf91upm5G Wq45PeudLSMVNiV08fvnl0VJxCl7i9cJ8Q6Oy7mDIY9dO8jPnkV7OwnbE1Eu90Is WVVo/kuI7/yK/Fw5aD3udWTw0wxFfNNpiSHTdokK5IGUh90l9naBLTVnyPJuJTRr ooYKAbKTE+Q0ZIIGbAs4Asb1u3CsndAf9JoCMTrGW+k7+Ikm53+f8R0NfrHXawBo lHaXewxIqZuBWibcxqlc =kHgJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_FAA8EE8D-1B34-49C7-A5A4-F56A483FEBE1-- From nobody Wed Mar 8 07:17:50 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E391296D3; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:17:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.47.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148898626874.20163.2152889791656516041@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 07:17:48 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: pals@ietf.org Subject: [Pals] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04.txt X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:17:48 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services of the IETF. Title : MPLS LSP PW status refresh reduction for Static Pseudowires Authors : Luca Martini George Swallow Elisa Bellagamba Filename : draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2017-03-08 Abstract: This document describes a method for generating an aggregated pseudowire status message transmitted on a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) to indicate the status of one or more pseudowires carried on the LSP. The method for transmitting the pseudowire (PW) status information is not new, however this protocol extension allows a Service Provider (SP) to reliably monitor the individual PW status while not overwhelming the network with multiple periodic status messages. This is achieved by sending a single cumulative summary status verification message for all the PWs grouped in the same LSP. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Mar 8 07:20:07 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661E31296D5; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:20:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.891 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nxgyy9pF884y; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:20:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from napoleon.monoski.com (napoleon.monoski.com [70.90.113.113]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D78611296D6; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:19:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from confusion.monoski.com (confusion.monoski.com [209.245.27.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by napoleon.monoski.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v28FJpkY005568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:19:51 -0700 (MST) To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, "'Andrew G. Malis'" , "'George Swallow'" , "'Elisa Bellagamba'" References: <058601d21988$e15b2820$a4117860$@olddog.co.uk> <58A0F649.7090301@monoski.com> <01b901d2862b$4e449980$eacdcc80$@olddog.co.uk> <58ADD2B3.8040101@monoski.com> <01f301d2911f$a6354b90$f29fe2b0$@olddog.co.uk> From: Luca Martini Organization: Monoski Message-ID: <58C02112.90403@monoski.com> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:19:46 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <01f301d2911f$a6354b90$f29fe2b0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" , pals@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-01.txt X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:20:06 -0000 HI! Adrian, I followed your initial suggestion and put al lthese ranges in the Expert review range , and created an expert guideline section. With this version -04 we should be good to go! Thanks. Luca On 02/27/17 10:33, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Luca, > >>>>>> Section 8.1 >>>>>> The values 128 through 254 are assigned using FCFS. You cannot then >>>>>> attempt to further constrain how the values are used (e.g., "for >>>>>> vendor proprietary extensions"), and you should avoid the word >>>>>> "reserved" since it has special meaning for IANA. >>>> ??? i want the vendor proprietary extensions to be FCFS, does this not >>>> say that ? >>>> the point is that if something is not a proprietary extension it should >>>> not use this. >>>> for example it prevents people like me from using FEC type 128 for a >>>> standard protocol ...;-) >>> Afraid it doesn't >>> FCFS means "open season". Anyone can get a FCFS code point for any use. >>> Again, the AD can help sort this out. > |> Yes , FCFS is open , and this range is also designated for vendor > |> proprietary extensions. The intention is that something in this range > |> would never become IETF standard. >> Can IANA follow the FCFS process while this document designates this >> range as vendor proprietary ? >> if someone violates that rule, then other implementations have no duty >> to support these extensions as they are not standard. >> >> If you think that this will not work , I can change it to just IETF review. > No. The only rules are the rules in the registry. That is, you tell IANA how to assign values, and they do that. Someone coming along later is bound only by the IANA rules and not by additional words in your RFC. > > So you can choose from 5226, but sounds to me that you want: > - a registry to be kept of values used by vendors (i.e., not just an > unregulated space for them to play in) > - to stop people grabbing from the vendor space when they should > be writing RFCs > I suggest you use "Expert Review" [RFC5226] and describe in your document (as you would be required to) the rules that the Designated Expert must apply. These could be: > - Not used for protocol extensions that should be standardised > - Only use for vendor-specific uses > - Must have a clear indication of the vendor > - Should have a contact email address that is not an individual > > (Otherwise, IETF review) > > A > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pals mailing list > Pals@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals > From nobody Sun Mar 12 08:15:04 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5C6129A46; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CoC7xZdnhsWB; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D9B712962F; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DIS79097; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:14:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.70) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:14:56 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA507-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.194]) by szxema411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:14:50 +0800 From: "Hejia (Jia)" To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-04.txt Thread-Index: AQHSmYHoqoVf8pNIUkWZfD+mBEN0Og== Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:14:49 +0000 Message-ID: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C9BE0C@szxema507-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.45.45.8] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C9BE0Cszxema507mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.58C565F2.0035, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.6.194, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 0b015d05fe02178f60cd8d01664d12f0 Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "pals@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping.all@ietf.org" Subject: [Pals] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-04.txt X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:15:03 -0000 --_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C9BE0Cszxema507mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. Th= e Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts= as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on spec= ial request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Rout= ing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ?ht= tp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it wo= uld be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Ca= ll comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion= or by updating the draft. Document:draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-04.txt Reviewer: Jia He Review Date: 2017-03-10 IETF LC End Date: - Intended Status: Informational Summary: This document is basically well written, the nits listed below are tiny whi= ch in my opinion should not block further procedures. Comments: I found the examples in the appendix helped a lot to understand the procedu= res of PIM snooping and PIM proxying for VPLS as described in this draft. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: 1) Section 1.1, beginning of Page 5, "Notice that traffic is always sent on ports that have point-to-point connections to routers ot that are attached to a LAN on which there is a router, even those on which there are no snooped group memberships, because IGMP snooping alone can not determine if there are interested receivers beyond those routers." I found this sentence difficult to read. It is recommended to reorganize th= e sentence. Nits: 1) Section 2.2.1, Page 7, s/MUSTforward/MUST forward 2) Sections 2.6.3 & 2.6.4, Figures 1 &2, add (PP) as the abbreviation after= Prune-Pend similar to NoInfo r(NI) and Join (J) 3) Appendix B, Page 31, add "Figure 3" before the title "An example Network= for Triggering Assert" B.R. Jia --_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C9BE0Cszxema507mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

 

I have been selected as the Rou= ting Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to = review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last= call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to = the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please= see ?http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

 

Although these comments are pri= marily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could con= sider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, a= nd strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

 

Document:draft-ietf-pals-vpls-p= im-snooping-04.txt

Reviewer: Jia He 

Review Date: 2017-03-10<= /p>

IET= F LC End Date: -

Intended Status: Informational =

 

Summary:

This document is basically well= written, the nits listed below are tiny which in my opinion should no= t block further procedures. 

 

Comments:

I found the examples in the app= endix helped a lot to understand the procedures of PIM snooping and PI= M proxying for VPLS as described in this draft.

 

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

 

Minor Issues:

1) Section 1.1, beginning of Pa= ge 5,

 

"Notice that traffic is al= ways sent on ports that have point-to-point
   connections to routers ot that are attached to a LAN on which = there
   is a router, even those on which there are no snooped group    memberships, because IGMP snooping alone can not determine if = there
   are interested receivers beyond those routers."

 

I found this sentence difficult= to read. It is recommended to reorganize the sentence.

 

 

Nits:

1) Section 2.2.1, Page 7, s/MUS= Tforward/MUST forward

2) Sections 2.6.3 & 2.6.4, = Figures 1 &2, add (PP) as the abbreviation after Prune-Pend  = similar to NoInfo r(NI) and Join (J)

3) Appendix B, Page 31, add &qu= ot;Figure 3" before the title "An example Network for Triggering = Assert"

 

 

 

B.R.

Jia

--_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C9BE0Cszxema507mbschi_-- From nobody Mon Mar 13 02:30:20 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3918F1294C4; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 02:30:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4zgEPV4kEYGC; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 02:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F35FC127076; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 02:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 340DA1B651FE3; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:30:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id v2D9U5wj018354 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:30:05 +0100 Received: from princess.be.alcatel-lucent.com (bt9870.be.alcatel-lucent.com [138.203.16.150]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id v2D9TpOW014783; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:29:52 GMT Received: from [138.203.14.165] (cplab165 [138.203.14.165]) by princess.be.alcatel-lucent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7121043D8; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:29:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <58C6668E.2040600@nokia.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:29:50 +0100 From: Olivier Dornon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hejia (Jia)" , "rtg-ads@ietf.org" References: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C9BE0C@szxema507-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C9BE0C@szxema507-mbs.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040409070806010102080105" Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "pals@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pals] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-04.txt X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:30:14 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040409070806010102080105 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jia, Thank you for you review. I found all your remarks valid, I'll publish an updated version shortly. Thanks, Olivier. On 03/12/2017 04:14 PM, Hejia (Jia) wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this > draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or > routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG > review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is > to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about > the Routing Directorate, please see > ?http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, > it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other > IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them > through discussion or by updating the draft. > > Document:draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-04.txt > > Reviewer: Jia He > > Review Date: 2017-03-10 > > IETF LC End Date: - > > Intended Status: Informational > > Summary: > > This document is basically well written, the nits listed below are > tiny which in my opinion should not block further procedures. > > Comments: > > I found the examples in the appendix helped a lot to understand the > procedures of PIM snooping and PIM proxying for VPLS as described in > this draft. > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > > 1) Section 1.1, beginning of Page 5, > > "Notice that traffic is always sent on ports that have point-to-point > connections to routers ot that are attached to a LAN on which there > is a router, even those on which there are no snooped group > memberships, because IGMP snooping alone can not determine if there > are interested receivers beyond those routers." > > I found this sentence difficult to read. It is recommended to > reorganize the sentence. > > Nits: > > 1) Section 2.2.1, Page 7, s/MUSTforward/MUST forward > > 2) Sections 2.6.3 & 2.6.4, Figures 1 &2, add (PP) as the > abbreviation after Prune-Pend similar to NoInfo r(NI) and Join (J) > > 3) Appendix B, Page 31, add "Figure 3" before the title "An example > Network for Triggering Assert" > > B.R. > > Jia > --------------040409070806010102080105 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jia,

Thank you for you review.

I found all your remarks valid, I'll publish an updated version shortly.

Thanks,
Olivier.

On 03/12/2017 04:14 PM, Hejia (Jia) wrote:

Hello,

 

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ?http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

 

Document:draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-04.txt

Reviewer: Jia He 

Review Date: 2017-03-10

IETF LC End Date: -

Intended Status: Informational

 

Summary:

This document is basically well written, the nits listed below are tiny which in my opinion should not block further procedures. 

 

Comments:

I found the examples in the appendix helped a lot to understand the procedures of PIM snooping and PIM proxying for VPLS as described in this draft.

 

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

 

Minor Issues:

1) Section 1.1, beginning of Page 5,

 

"Notice that traffic is always sent on ports that have point-to-point
   connections to routers ot that are attached to a LAN on which there
   is a router, even those on which there are no snooped group
   memberships, because IGMP snooping alone can not determine if there
   are interested receivers beyond those routers."

 

I found this sentence difficult to read. It is recommended to reorganize the sentence.

 

 

Nits:

1) Section 2.2.1, Page 7, s/MUSTforward/MUST forward

2) Sections 2.6.3 & 2.6.4, Figures 1 &2, add (PP) as the abbreviation after Prune-Pend  similar to NoInfo r(NI) and Join (J)

3) Appendix B, Page 31, add "Figure 3" before the title "An example Network for Triggering Assert"

 

 

 

B.R.

Jia


--------------040409070806010102080105-- From nobody Mon Mar 13 12:47:24 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7F9129AC4; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:47:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n3nkPGDTeGlb; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FCE2129AC5; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2DJlE2Y003608; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:47:14 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.251.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2DJjwYx002308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:47:12 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Luca Martini'" , "'Andrew G. Malis'" , "'George Swallow'" , "'Elisa Bellagamba'" References: <058601d21988$e15b2820$a4117860$@olddog.co.uk> <58A0F649.7090301@monoski.com> <01b901d2862b$4e449980$eacdcc80$@olddog.co.uk> <58ADD2B3.8040101@monoski.com> <01f301d2911f$a6354b90$f29fe2b0$@olddog.co.uk> <58C02112.90403@monoski.com> In-Reply-To: <58C02112.90403@monoski.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <028e01d29c32$9ed6a290$dc83e7b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQM4vo8J6wBQZFbSvY6b5rTwOAF7nwH7KBPWAn2FA1kCSZrYWAGDYMnkATlv9o8C+4w3GwD5u1lvnls8FHA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22940.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--22.713-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--22.713-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 6lay9u8oTUOnykMun0J1wkrHeoSQjqUcewkrNztQZRradW4iYSMjUae7 nmhJA6kzOgiczDGxXU5fOhWPDXG5idq72IXmYAV7JrUxoq6hvw9+Mk6ACsw4Jlvym/gvSH4i0Du 2Dq3CQeu1uiY9nZpuVApdVTQY21h/WZQyrwf9n7zcWo5Vvs8MQlAI6wCVrE3vLkqBRyyjuhWcqq thcB00+akOAx94vw/ekRGShqSzBVn7LVBcLRTRGGivjLE8DPtZ+qTrCpYSyMJ9WQH9y/pSXXFD0 I0jlEDdlzFc/zKmggsgnvrgPYqDAhqT9VoxtP2le0i2wcB24/G9vtwsX5fX6J6fSoF3Lt+M9Ngs mL8Bq9hvsMaOJSZ5bPK/JmYKoJWpsETAF81ZvkKpuD25aEtgt/ioIsi7Sa0gsneuamRRT5M6W33 UwHDV5ufOVcxjDhcwAYt5KiTiutkLbigRnpKlKU0Pn8oFtLCc/N9/P5Y462I= Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" , pals@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-01.txt X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:47:23 -0000 Thanks Luca, Let's kick it up stairs. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@monoski.com] > Sent: 08 March 2017 15:20 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Andrew G. Malis'; 'George Swallow'; 'Elisa = Bellagamba' > Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; = 'BRUNGARD, > DEBORAH A'; pals@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Pals] RtgDir review of = draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-01.txt >=20 > HI! Adrian, > I followed your initial suggestion and put al lthese ranges in the > Expert review range , and created an expert guideline section. >=20 > With this version -04 we should be good to go! > Thanks. > Luca >=20 >=20 > On 02/27/17 10:33, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > > >>>>>> Section 8.1 > >>>>>> The values 128 through 254 are assigned using FCFS. You cannot = then > >>>>>> attempt to further constrain how the values are used (e.g., = "for > >>>>>> vendor proprietary extensions"), and you should avoid the word > >>>>>> "reserved" since it has special meaning for IANA. > >>>> ??? i want the vendor proprietary extensions to be FCFS, does = this not > >>>> say that ? > >>>> the point is that if something is not a proprietary extension it = should > >>>> not use this. > >>>> for example it prevents people like me from using FEC type 128 = for a > >>>> standard protocol ...;-) > >>> Afraid it doesn't > >>> FCFS means "open season". Anyone can get a FCFS code point for any = use. > >>> Again, the AD can help sort this out. > > |> Yes , FCFS is open , and this range is also designated for vendor > > |> proprietary extensions. The intention is that something in this = range > > |> would never become IETF standard. > >> Can IANA follow the FCFS process while this document designates = this > >> range as vendor proprietary ? > >> if someone violates that rule, then other implementations have no = duty > >> to support these extensions as they are not standard. > >> > >> If you think that this will not work , I can change it to just IETF = review. > > No. The only rules are the rules in the registry. That is, you tell = IANA how to > assign values, and they do that. Someone coming along later is bound = only by the > IANA rules and not by additional words in your RFC. > > > > So you can choose from 5226, but sounds to me that you want: > > - a registry to be kept of values used by vendors (i.e., not just an > > unregulated space for them to play in) > > - to stop people grabbing from the vendor space when they should > > be writing RFCs > > I suggest you use "Expert Review" [RFC5226] and describe in your = document (as > you would be required to) the rules that the Designated Expert must = apply. > These could be: > > - Not used for protocol extensions that should be standardised > > - Only use for vendor-specific uses > > - Must have a clear indication of the vendor > > - Should have a contact email address that is not an individual > > > > (Otherwise, IETF review) > > > > A > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pals mailing list > > Pals@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals > > From nobody Tue Mar 14 19:00:57 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02ED1317F5; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:00:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.738 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gidRkSQ8rtEf; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x236.google.com (mail-ot0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED91A1293E1; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x236.google.com with SMTP id x37so4051708ota.2; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:00:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Zbpg1OlS4VN9ogeaONcosf9IFsV919DOAGe6BkyFL5I=; b=CcGdLZqrFt9yaTeEyHMGUCU8lT33nknogDEvmwK5shNWK2yPjUWHZ8oWHIe5Yb2Lj0 e0jJX4T5Vk+3J48KKfUOHB1DzA4mIw+yRV3MHrWn3rJ+ALW0di2nQdEquskmMV3VfvEC ui3vUSWah6ZJ64DTncDiEbF01Kf0YGvRmnJiGcxpXnj6ZBaGFUvEgXb0PPwtoxZ5tBgn MWcxbCBUREFc9KjehfjBEgOFxyxD39PJPBefSB9KrIN+lrgDo2pc5nB14Yfe5bQPz8/J FzR7REsfO4CN9z6P85gVYaEGwJ0l9JAYH/BaNgs21Uz2pjZaKGL3fjzgmHNv8nebl3ig VVKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Zbpg1OlS4VN9ogeaONcosf9IFsV919DOAGe6BkyFL5I=; b=UYUCHIrjXzyhXKI4SIiVdhzmrScEJKNGKXQ3BgS/JRfcnaIbICJH/k2MlSnOMjVNP5 ZKGHf4DzjJUsnSQiYZtUYtgtzcY+Tir0BXVaFlH1Mlo+sPWfFB0oUtutmXJEQRBcbruv TKRKSGnjynZaoU6Nec4UirocC1JAzM/7SgwdGFI9q2d6FcKxAhjTao79jmbCtIltGbJV udS3OIY6mPg0A6R4jLPwb1fBiknFspg7AP3akzE5UovB6NzjI5kv05z8DkD+xePlCHqO mh80lG1WQjrVXqP8Kr1fnIUrZj6lvv0fCbE7lFbWqhHUNuFYIIpuSFeL0hONF0jaNZqg pQBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3xQI1Tr5qwiMnoQYkAJO+EtYtVbMTFOlYLaVv48vLiBzkhGHUx3Re1CemHaSu0ss1kaGxOeC+zZqMa6w== X-Received: by 10.202.8.201 with SMTP id 192mr398362oii.6.1489543253201; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:00:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.85.229 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:00:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:00:32 -0400 Message-ID: To: draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org, "pals@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c12f9847c1ae7054abb50d2 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 02:00:56 -0000 --94eb2c12f9847c1ae7054abb50d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Working Group, We are anticipating a forthcoming WG last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 . We will conduct an IPR poll before the last call is started. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? Note that there are currently no IPR disclosures in the Datatracker. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to thi= s email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any additional relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PALS WG email list.* The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PALS 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. This call will remain open until we=E2=80=99ve heard back from all of the a= uthors and contributors. Thanks, Andy --94eb2c12f9847c1ae7054abb50d2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Working Group,

We are antici= pating a forthcoming WG last call for

We will conduct an=C2=A0IPR=C2=A0poll=C2=A0before the last= call is started.

Are you aware of any=C2=A0IPR=C2=A0that applies to=C2=A0
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-= 01?

If so, has this=C2=A0IPR=C2=A0been disclosed in compliance with IETF=C2=A0IPR=C2=A0rules
(see= RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

Note that there a= re currently no IPR disclosures in the Datatracker.

If you are listed as a document author or c= ontributor please respond to this
email regardless of whether or not you= are aware of any additional relevant
IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the=C2=A0PALS=C2=A0WG email= list.* The
document will not advance to the next stage until a response= has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the=C2=A0PALS=C2=A0WG email list but are = not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond o= nly if you are aware of any
IPR=C2=A0that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with= IETF rules.

This call will remain open until we=E2=80=99ve heard back from= all of the authors and=C2=A0
contributo= rs.

Thanks,
Andy

--94eb2c12f9847c1ae7054abb50d2-- From nobody Tue Mar 14 21:20:14 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2AE127B5A; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:20:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=onevmw.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y25b40fcdIxw; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0088.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41F2B1279EB; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:20:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=onevmw.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-vmware-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=vqH44lR39TkPl8LxuAeKH7aCwzW1gD+jItjna2qAz4A=; b=Wgeo6gcZ5zc8swCM7Xk9bxlb9C3S4gDdpKg+Uquu3TJlwVVPCUcJyd6FBdNfx4twOpAXhuNRSZAu+UeQWC0r3Vje52kZ6SAS9SlB8mMDnHePAs8Su9Ac3FOsN+zkOkLCZ3VniF5TIgZ8YgEtm+klHQkIEv62aOrFyfY4pSCRcrw= Received: from BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.19.15) by BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.19.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.977.5; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 04:20:06 +0000 Received: from BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.19.15]) by BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.19.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0977.010; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 04:20:06 +0000 From: Sami Boutros To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" , "pals@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 Thread-Index: AQHSnS/+GCpDIurmKUmJ0q2mlB+88KGU1x+A Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 04:20:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=vmware.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [50.131.13.252] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR05MB3009; 7:YcoPYrCIHcevO2Elzo0Rq3/RwmHoiMPWEZKglIM24K9IEHcc0wkzKXL/1c1pUe/sbKIFOtVqWRuBgLZYpdvKif+gjum8dUbba5dzQkZEKNEdMktzCAQLPmXLAljSJ93ch8fyBhINQiYWLGHI2fJh8Fe8Oo2PiJeo3Ph3wmi4TPkx25tB/cSVjEAXu/kTHscQRIVmCvCsyoPa85eGhuIdzUvDqZsC+CP79pasEPWTndJciffjeHG5TjZPFhe0EaLB2YEQAr4YLia52YhHdYXBWeqbh5nd+gcnJKvdqpHOM2MOk74jFWUk68LJtWJdBNVUBVXMRYUQZToGWIyMVCyUpQ==; 20:e9EowaGoVwBpC9R3No4roMlfI0xq8RbwHBB9NCiNp/Z7xjLg2NgSTXx0EA7215dMNi6m7PbZdsAMB9Sl2kaVADkenZeVwIpL+/C/SezkpHuqDnyv3JOJqyvfzAdRCqcqWwXl/ld1qk+6yqVwfgNXZSiFr0kbTo8NAdLU5Y63wsQ= x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 377c2727-78cb-4008-4f21-08d46b5a8f9c x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254019); SRVR:BN6PR05MB3009; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(61668805478150)(10436049006162)(95692535739014); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123558025)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BN6PR05MB3009; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR05MB3009; x-forefront-prvs: 02475B2A01 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39830400002)(39450400003)(39410400002)(377454003)(77096006)(6486002)(2501003)(2906002)(2900100001)(122556002)(53546007)(8676002)(7906003)(7736002)(229853002)(2950100002)(2201001)(5660300001)(36756003)(81166006)(8936002)(86362001)(3660700001)(25786008)(82746002)(6506006)(3280700002)(38730400002)(99286003)(230783001)(50986999)(66066001)(6246003)(39060400002)(54896002)(6306002)(33656002)(54356999)(236005)(76176999)(189998001)(6512007)(3846002)(6116002)(6436002)(83716003)(53936002)(102836003)(606005)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR05MB3009; H:BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A20DD15CCE36467E8FEFC8FCCC542B80vmwarecom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: vmware.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Mar 2017 04:20:06.3984 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b39138ca-3cee-4b4a-a4d6-cd83d9dd62f0 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR05MB3009 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 04:20:13 -0000 --_000_A20DD15CCE36467E8FEFC8FCCC542B80vmwarecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBhbSBub3QgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IElQUi4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQpTYW1pDQoNCkZyb206ICJB bmRyZXcgRy4gTWFsaXMiIDxhZ21hbGlzQGdtYWlsLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86YWdtYWxpc0BnbWFpbC5j b20+Pg0KRGF0ZTogVHVlc2RheSwgTWFyY2ggMTQsIDIwMTcgYXQgNzowMCBQTQ0KVG86ICJkcmFm dC1pZXRmLXBhbHMtcDJtcC1wdy1sc3AtcGluZ0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1w YWxzLXAybXAtcHctbHNwLXBpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmc+IiA8ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wYWxzLXAybXAtcHct bHNwLXBpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGFscy1wMm1wLXB3LWxzcC1waW5n QGlldGYub3JnPj4sICJwYWxzQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpwYWxzQGlldGYub3JnPiIgPHBhbHNA aWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOnBhbHNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogSVBSIHBvbGwgZm9yIGRy YWZ0LWlldGYtcGFscy1wMm1wLXB3LWxzcC1waW5nLTAxDQpSZXNlbnQtRnJvbTogPGFsaWFzLWJv dW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmFsaWFzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+Pg0KUmVzZW50LVRv OiA8cGFyYWdqQGNpc2NvLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86cGFyYWdqQGNpc2NvLmNvbT4+LCBTYW1pIEJvdXRy b3MgPHNib3V0cm9zQHZtd2FyZS5jb208bWFpbHRvOnNib3V0cm9zQHZtd2FyZS5jb20+PiwgPGFs ZHJpbi5pZXRmQGdtYWlsLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86YWxkcmluLmlldGZAZ21haWwuY29tPj4NClJlc2Vu dC1EYXRlOiBUdWVzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAxNCwgMjAxNyBhdCA3OjAwIFBNDQoNCldvcmtpbmcgR3Jv dXAsDQoNCldlIGFyZSBhbnRpY2lwYXRpbmcgYSBmb3J0aGNvbWluZyBXRyBsYXN0IGNhbGwgZm9y DQpodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wYWxzLXAybXAtcHctbHNw LXBpbmctMDE8aHR0cHM6Ly91cmxkZWZlbnNlLnByb29mcG9pbnQuY29tL3YyL3VybD91PWh0dHBz LTNBX190b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZ19odG1sX2RyYWZ0LTJEaWV0Zi0yRHBhbHMtMkRwMm1wLTJEcHct MkRsc3AtMkRwaW5nLTJEMDEmZD1Ed01GYVEmYz11aWxhSzkwRDRUT1ZvSDU4Sk5YUmdRJnI9SVZ6 Y1RSTFFkcHRhMDhMMGJfeTJ6RGtxdndKaFJLTUNBYlgtMkstTFY5OCZtPUR3bVFra2RsS080aE5s VloxaElEMEVRai0xTDJoNlVpLXRfRmJhcUlpemcmcz1KVUVCcFdRTXl4a2lKTWlBVWlRdEk1S0Z5 Z01CSXBMcm9zMXdUVy1EN3lFJmU9PiAuDQoNCldlIHdpbGwgY29uZHVjdCBhbiBJUFIgcG9sbCBi ZWZvcmUgdGhlIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBpcyBzdGFydGVkLg0KDQpBcmUgeW91IGF3YXJlIG9mIGFueSBJ UFIgdGhhdCBhcHBsaWVzIHRvDQpkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBhbHMtcDJtcC1wdy1sc3AtcGluZy0wMT8N Cg0KSWYgc28sIGhhcyB0aGlzIElQUiBiZWVuIGRpc2Nsb3NlZCBpbiBjb21wbGlhbmNlIHdpdGgg SUVURiBJUFIgcnVsZXMNCihzZWUgUkZDcyAzOTc5LCA0ODc5LCAzNjY5IGFuZCA1Mzc4IGZvciBt b3JlIGRldGFpbHMpPw0KDQpOb3RlIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgYXJlIGN1cnJlbnRseSBubyBJUFIgZGlz Y2xvc3VyZXMgaW4gdGhlIERhdGF0cmFja2VyLg0KDQpJZiB5b3UgYXJlIGxpc3RlZCBhcyBhIGRv Y3VtZW50IGF1dGhvciBvciBjb250cmlidXRvciBwbGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCB0byB0aGlzDQplbWFp bCByZWdhcmRsZXNzIG9mIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IGFkZGl0 aW9uYWwgcmVsZXZhbnQNCklQUi4gKlRoZSByZXNwb25zZSBuZWVkcyB0byBiZSBzZW50IHRvIHRo ZSBQQUxTIFdHIGVtYWlsIGxpc3QuKiBUaGUNCmRvY3VtZW50IHdpbGwgbm90IGFkdmFuY2UgdG8g dGhlIG5leHQgc3RhZ2UgdW50aWwgYSByZXNwb25zZSBoYXMgYmVlbg0KcmVjZWl2ZWQgZnJvbSBl YWNoIGF1dGhvciBhbmQgY29udHJpYnV0b3IuDQoNCklmIHlvdSBhcmUgb24gdGhlIFBBTFMgV0cg ZW1haWwgbGlzdCBidXQgYXJlIG5vdCBsaXN0ZWQgYXMgYW4gYXV0aG9yIG9yDQpjb250cmlidXRv ciwgdGhlbiBwbGVhc2UgZXhwbGljaXRseSByZXNwb25kIG9ubHkgaWYgeW91IGFyZSBhd2FyZSBv ZiBhbnkNCklQUiB0aGF0IGhhcyBub3QgeWV0IGJlZW4gZGlzY2xvc2VkIGluIGNvbmZvcm1hbmNl IHdpdGggSUVURiBydWxlcy4NCg0KVGhpcyBjYWxsIHdpbGwgcmVtYWluIG9wZW4gdW50aWwgd2Xi gJl2ZSBoZWFyZCBiYWNrIGZyb20gYWxsIG9mIHRoZSBhdXRob3JzIGFuZA0KY29udHJpYnV0b3Jz Lg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQpBbmR5DQoNCg== --_000_A20DD15CCE36467E8FEFC8FCCC542B80vmwarecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <741FFE05C9F5E24398D67E3A147EAE02@namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iQ2FsaWJy aSxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5JIGFtIG5vdCBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkgSVBSLjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjxk aXY+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iQ2FsaWJyaSxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48YnI+DQo8L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2Pjxmb250IGZhY2U9IkNhbGlicmksc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+VGhhbmtzLDwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iQ2FsaWJyaSxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48YnI+DQo8L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+ DQo8ZGl2Pjxmb250IGZhY2U9IkNhbGlicmksc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+U2FtaTwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOiByZ2IoMCwgMCwgMCk7IGZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBDYWxpYnJpLCBz YW5zLXNlcmlmOyBmb250LXNpemU6IDE0cHg7Ij4NCjxkaXYgaWQ9Ik1BQ19PVVRMT09LX1NJR05B VFVSRSI+PC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IHJnYigwLCAw LCAwKTsgZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IENhbGlicmksIHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7IGZvbnQtc2l6ZTogMTRweDsi Pg0KPGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8c3BhbiBpZD0iT0xLX1NSQ19CT0RZX1NFQ1RJT04iIHN0eWxlPSJj b2xvcjogcmdiKDAsIDAsIDApOyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogQ2FsaWJyaSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsgZm9u dC1zaXplOiAxNHB4OyI+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJpOyBmb250LXNp emU6MTJwdDsgdGV4dC1hbGlnbjpsZWZ0OyBjb2xvcjpibGFjazsgQk9SREVSLUJPVFRPTTogbWVk aXVtIG5vbmU7IEJPUkRFUi1MRUZUOiBtZWRpdW0gbm9uZTsgUEFERElORy1CT1RUT006IDBpbjsg UEFERElORy1MRUZUOiAwaW47IFBBRERJTkctUklHSFQ6IDBpbjsgQk9SREVSLVRPUDogI2I1YzRk ZiAxcHQgc29saWQ7IEJPUkRFUi1SSUdIVDogbWVkaXVtIG5vbmU7IFBBRERJTkctVE9QOiAzcHQi Pg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPkZyb206IDwvc3Bhbj4mcXVvdDtBbmRy ZXcgRy4gTWFsaXMmcXVvdDsgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzphZ21hbGlzQGdtYWlsLmNvbSI+ YWdtYWxpc0BnbWFpbC5jb208L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpi b2xkIj5EYXRlOiA8L3NwYW4+VHVlc2RheSwgTWFyY2ggMTQsIDIwMTcgYXQgNzowMCBQTTxicj4N CjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5UbzogPC9zcGFuPiZxdW90OzxhIGhyZWY9 Im1haWx0bzpkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBhbHMtcDJtcC1wdy1sc3AtcGluZ0BpZXRmLm9yZyI+ZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1wYWxzLXAybXAtcHctbHNwLXBpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+JnF1b3Q7ICZsdDs8YSBocmVm PSJtYWlsdG86ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wYWxzLXAybXAtcHctbHNwLXBpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmciPmRyYWZ0 LWlldGYtcGFscy1wMm1wLXB3LWxzcC1waW5nQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPiZndDssDQogJnF1b3Q7PGEg aHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOnBhbHNAaWV0Zi5vcmciPnBhbHNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+JnF1b3Q7ICZsdDs8 YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86cGFsc0BpZXRmLm9yZyI+cGFsc0BpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0K PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPlN1YmplY3Q6IDwvc3Bhbj5JUFIgcG9sbCBm b3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wYWxzLXAybXAtcHctbHNwLXBpbmctMDE8YnI+DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0i Zm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6Ym9sZCI+UmVzZW50LUZyb206IDwvc3Bhbj4mbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRv OmFsaWFzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmciPmFsaWFzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+Jmd0Ozxi cj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5SZXNlbnQtVG86IDwvc3Bhbj4mbHQ7 PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOnBhcmFnakBjaXNjby5jb20iPnBhcmFnakBjaXNjby5jb208L2E+Jmd0 OywgU2FtaSBCb3V0cm9zICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86c2JvdXRyb3NAdm13YXJlLmNvbSI+ c2JvdXRyb3NAdm13YXJlLmNvbTwvYT4mZ3Q7LCAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmFsZHJpbi5p ZXRmQGdtYWlsLmNvbSI+YWxkcmluLmlldGZAZ21haWwuY29tPC9hPiZndDs8YnI+DQo8c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6Ym9sZCI+UmVzZW50LURhdGU6IDwvc3Bhbj5UdWVzZGF5LCBNYXJj aCAxNCwgMjAxNyBhdCA3OjAwIFBNPGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGRpcj0ibHRyIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEzcHgiPldv cmtpbmcgR3JvdXAsPC9zcGFuPjxicj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9ImdtYWlsX3F1b3RlIj4NCjxkaXYg ZGlyPSJsdHIiPg0KPGRpdj48YnI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+V2UgYXJlIGFudGljaXBhdGluZyBh IGZvcnRoY29taW5nIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBmb3I8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6 Ly91cmxkZWZlbnNlLnByb29mcG9pbnQuY29tL3YyL3VybD91PWh0dHBzLTNBX190b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZ19odG1sX2RyYWZ0LTJEaWV0Zi0yRHBhbHMtMkRwMm1wLTJEcHctMkRsc3AtMkRwaW5nLTJE MDEmYW1wO2Q9RHdNRmFRJmFtcDtjPXVpbGFLOTBENFRPVm9INThKTlhSZ1EmYW1wO3I9SVZ6Y1RS TFFkcHRhMDhMMGJfeTJ6RGtxdndKaFJLTUNBYlgtMkstTFY5OCZhbXA7bT1Ed21Ra2tkbEtPNGhO bFZaMWhJRDBFUWotMUwyaDZVaS10X0ZiYXFJaXpnJmFtcDtzPUpVRUJwV1FNeXhraUpNaUFVaVF0 STVLRnlnTUJJcExyb3Mxd1RXLUQ3eUUmYW1wO2U9Ij5odHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0 bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wYWxzLXAybXAtcHctbHNwLXBpbmctMDE8L2E+DQogLjxicj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi44MDAwMDAxOTA3MzQ4NjNweCI+PGJy Pg0KV2Ugd2lsbCBjb25kdWN0IGFuJm5ic3A7PHNwYW4gY2xhc3M9ImdtYWlsLW1fODE3OTk0MTA0 MTk4OTI1Mjc4MGdtYWlsLWlsIj5JUFI8L3NwYW4+Jm5ic3A7cG9sbCZuYnNwO2JlZm9yZSB0aGUg bGFzdCBjYWxsIGlzIHN0YXJ0ZWQuPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KQXJlIHlvdSBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkmbmJz cDs8c3BhbiBjbGFzcz0iZ21haWwtbV84MTc5OTQxMDQxOTg5MjUyNzgwZ21haWwtaWwiPklQUjwv c3Bhbj4mbmJzcDt0aGF0IGFwcGxpZXMgdG8mbmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMi44MDAwMDAxOTA3MzQ4NjNweCI+ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wYWxzLXAybXAtcHctbHNwLXBp bmctMDE/PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KSWYgc28sIGhhcyB0aGlzJm5ic3A7PHNwYW4gY2xhc3M9ImdtYWls LW1fODE3OTk0MTA0MTk4OTI1Mjc4MGdtYWlsLWlsIj5JUFI8L3NwYW4+Jm5ic3A7YmVlbiBkaXNj bG9zZWQgaW4gY29tcGxpYW5jZSB3aXRoIElFVEYmbmJzcDs8c3BhbiBjbGFzcz0iZ21haWwtbV84 MTc5OTQxMDQxOTg5MjUyNzgwZ21haWwtaWwiPklQUjwvc3Bhbj4mbmJzcDtydWxlczxicj4NCihz ZWUgUkZDcyAzOTc5LCA0ODc5LCAzNjY5IGFuZCA1Mzc4IGZvciBtb3JlIGRldGFpbHMpPzxicj4N Cjxicj4NCk5vdGUgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgY3VycmVudGx5IG5vIElQUiBkaXNjbG9zdXJlcyBp biB0aGUgRGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTIuODAwMDAw MTkwNzM0ODYzcHgiPjxicj4NCklmIHlvdSBhcmUgbGlzdGVkIGFzIGEgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXV0aG9y IG9yIGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9yIHBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoaXM8YnI+DQplbWFpbCByZWdhcmRs ZXNzIG9mIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgcmVs ZXZhbnQ8YnI+DQo8c3BhbiBjbGFzcz0iZ21haWwtbV84MTc5OTQxMDQxOTg5MjUyNzgwZ21haWwt aWwiPklQUjwvc3Bhbj4uICpUaGUgcmVzcG9uc2UgbmVlZHMgdG8gYmUgc2VudCB0byB0aGUmbmJz cDs8c3BhbiBjbGFzcz0iZ21haWwtbV84MTc5OTQxMDQxOTg5MjUyNzgwZ21haWwtaWwiPlBBTFM8 L3NwYW4+Jm5ic3A7V0cgZW1haWwgbGlzdC4qIFRoZTxicj4NCmRvY3VtZW50IHdpbGwgbm90IGFk dmFuY2UgdG8gdGhlIG5leHQgc3RhZ2UgdW50aWwgYSByZXNwb25zZSBoYXMgYmVlbjxicj4NCnJl Y2VpdmVkIGZyb20gZWFjaCBhdXRob3IgYW5kIGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9yLjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBzdHls ZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjgwMDAwMDE5MDczNDg2M3B4Ij48YnI+DQpJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG9uIHRo ZSZuYnNwOzxzcGFuIGNsYXNzPSJnbWFpbC1tXzgxNzk5NDEwNDE5ODkyNTI3ODBnbWFpbC1pbCI+ UEFMUzwvc3Bhbj4mbmJzcDtXRyBlbWFpbCBsaXN0IGJ1dCBhcmUgbm90IGxpc3RlZCBhcyBhbiBh dXRob3Igb3I8YnI+DQpjb250cmlidXRvciwgdGhlbiBwbGVhc2UgZXhwbGljaXRseSByZXNwb25k IG9ubHkgaWYgeW91IGFyZSBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbnk8YnI+DQo8c3BhbiBjbGFzcz0iZ21haWwtbV84 MTc5OTQxMDQxOTg5MjUyNzgwZ21haWwtaWwiPklQUjwvc3Bhbj4mbmJzcDt0aGF0IGhhcyBub3Qg eWV0IGJlZW4gZGlzY2xvc2VkIGluIGNvbmZvcm1hbmNlIHdpdGggSUVURiBydWxlcy48L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxM3B4Ij48YnI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxM3B4Ij5UaGlzIGNhbGwgd2lsbCByZW1haW4gb3BlbiB1bnRpbCB3ZeKAmXZlIGhl YXJkIGJhY2sgZnJvbSBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgYW5kJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTNweCI+Y29udHJpYnV0b3JzLjxicj4NCjxicj4NClRoYW5rcyw8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxM3B4Ij5BbmR5PC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8YnI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L3NwYW4+DQo8L2JvZHk+ DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_A20DD15CCE36467E8FEFC8FCCC542B80vmwarecom_-- From nobody Tue Mar 14 22:36:57 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4CE129496; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:36:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.008 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7WqIJv31EqBJ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 171E1129482; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id o126so4047831pfb.3; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:36:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WWxfU9IVa8d7f0ZQMPhI5A3xlAsRtHc5D76z2x3jL/0=; b=W/VgqqyIhnD6/S7leWHhjqOqCRmhAfOd/m6PUM4ZqjOlDTnTjLrddBWDWiA+J5sYIX 18e3YhNJJM3O/eHc5TFePX0KZ28nai37Ra2lnvx/Y6PBJoyEvtZkgRueFSgKKYq6I9fe AmmRh7UGhGwMgPhr6YlwFtJw4wWsTEN3S4JWDakPuHHGl1vahbrE24uwP0Vo6yvmzL1F A3uW4rwwDUsEOyfkSTvDAzRolJz1sg6+XIH3mm5ve4HRzfKuM8nyosV4yV86NZfWfBwQ bEE3zfofI6bugoOzBox6CSFuGrDQ1z7ajzBURHwBBmu8nd+o1ueIwm+wpZItI0XujhIV Ek+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WWxfU9IVa8d7f0ZQMPhI5A3xlAsRtHc5D76z2x3jL/0=; b=HIc5gWqGW0leEst6A7lt0kgr1bNbndHndjMvhlZesTcBPpSaUbB4DaWYgnMms+ckDu gA8aQnUA/dgBi8G2frz0H/29QNr5HKPY3CloPusZMEHi2cb4nV0O27Lo9I2bbYxorZpR C6TVUXXIFmD5MrDFqDYoNLyZBeGBZFR7xfyreL9IKGfX5SyH7CmGVeg7tDJV94d6sr6r 9NOFn0AN5LPPC+bW2RAzkm70Ef9E7MqNUmcf+HZbOi5d2Bq5QbUvoGVKWz1AT4qNInGR 88mA2VfWRPPaDpj2Uc4ztY3vrWfROQfWR2pOd+gF43jGx8jvEjV57VAB3EogcdWM1SXg 7M8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H017NwVl695vTNqB2SUXK/Nv3HTV7r9nejKB041ruekuuNT32HyfKM96dK4mKfFww== X-Received: by 10.98.137.75 with SMTP id v72mr1624304pfd.190.1489556212502; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.70] (c-73-189-176-93.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.189.176.93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r13sm1301172pfg.55.2017.03.14.22.36.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5FE1490B-3D0C-4395-9BC3-F34E0AD1DE37 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Sam Aldrin X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14D27) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:36:50 -0700 Cc: "Andrew G. Malis" , "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" , "pals@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <3C3B417E-0DED-46C3-A168-B8BF85F87007@gmail.com> References: To: Sami Boutros Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 05:36:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail-5FE1490B-3D0C-4395-9BC3-F34E0AD1DE37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Sam Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:20 PM, Sami Boutros wrote: >=20 > I am not aware of any IPR. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Sami >=20 > From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 7:00 PM > To: "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" , "pals@ietf.org" > Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 > Resent-From: > Resent-To: , Sami Boutros , > Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 7:00 PM >=20 > Working Group, >=20 > We are anticipating a forthcoming WG last call for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 . >=20 > We will conduct an IPR poll before the last call is started. >=20 > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to=20 > draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01? >=20 > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? >=20 > Note that there are currently no IPR disclosures in the Datatracker. >=20 > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to th= is > email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any additional relevan= t > IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PALS WG email list.* The > document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been > received from each author and contributor. >=20 > If you are on the PALS 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. >=20 > This call will remain open until we=E2=80=99ve heard back from all of the a= uthors and=20 > contributors. >=20 > Thanks, > Andy >=20 --Apple-Mail-5FE1490B-3D0C-4395-9BC3-F34E0AD1DE37 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am not aware of any IPR related to t= his draft.

Sam

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 14, 2017, at= 9:20 PM, Sami Boutros <sboutros@v= mware.com> wrote:

I am not aware of any IPR.

Thanks,

Sami

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 7:0= 0 PM
To: "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org"= <draft-ietf= -pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pal= s-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: <paragj@cisco.com>, Sami Boutros <sboutros@vmware.com>, <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2017= at 7:00 PM

Working Group,

We are anticipating a forthcoming WG last call for

We will conduct an = IPR poll before the last call is started.

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to 
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-pi= ng-01?

If so, has this IPR=  been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

Note that there are currently no IPR disclosures in the Datatracker.

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 additional relevant<= br> IPR. *The respons= e needs to be sent to the PALS WG email list.* The
document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the P= ALS 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.

This call will remain open until we=E2=80=99ve= heard back from all of the authors and 
contributors.

Thanks,
Andy
= --Apple-Mail-5FE1490B-3D0C-4395-9BC3-F34E0AD1DE37-- From nobody Wed Mar 15 05:01:07 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD871129C15; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 05:01:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UrpVeLuc0f8x; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 05:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A80B129BFF; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 05:01:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11951; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1489579264; x=1490788864; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=J3F1w4n83YvUz9UPUL/Cvr2AWmVlpDEd2pUFjVatB2w=; b=SUfdQ7MWMHbbSHlfLBXdgXlC/gkvGgSkGkIv7Dn9IAkuRYeylfG9MHYv 03AhADW2niuVcG2cMbBIL5EGrej5MsNjOC79/TLI7a7ewrXKvVTz/1aqG ClGgvLImk3yqTQwXwx4WJoyx1WTNW/J5nMXLAZlPx+aVTqQFDFcwVP1zw 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BkAQAxLMlY/5RdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm5jYYEKB4VfiAeRVogPiACFLYIOKYV5AoJoPxgBAgEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUVAQEBAQMdVwUQAgEIEQMBAigHIREUCQgCBAENBYloAxUOsAOHNw2DHAEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhk6Eb4JRRoEPEQE8hUUFkByFZIYJOgGGdYc?= =?us-ascii?q?XhC6Be4UligWKVohwAR84fAhYFUGEHoI5dQEBhwKBIYENAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,168,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="218797358" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Mar 2017 12:01:03 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (xch-rtp-002.cisco.com [64.101.220.142]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2FC12AH023437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:01:02 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (64.101.220.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:01:01 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:01:01 -0400 From: "Parag Jain (paragj)" To: Sam Aldrin , Sami Boutros CC: "Andrew G. Malis" , "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" , "pals@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 Thread-Index: AQHSnS/9Tr9OELDlnEmeJemhliSrnaGVj4cAgAAVcQCAAChGgA== Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:01:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <3C3B417E-0DED-46C3-A168-B8BF85F87007@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3C3B417E-0DED-46C3-A168-B8BF85F87007@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.1.161129 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.147] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4EEA4FF8BB55paragjciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:01:07 -0000 --_000_D4EEA4FF8BB55paragjciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Thanks Parag From: Sam Aldrin > Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 1:36 AM To: Sami Boutros > Cc: "Andrew G. Malis" >, "draft= -ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" >, "pals@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 Resent-From: > Resent-To: Parag Jain >, >, > Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 1:36 AM I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Sam Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:20 PM, Sami Boutros > wrote: I am not aware of any IPR. Thanks, Sami From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 7:00 PM To: "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" >, "pals@ietf.org" > Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 Resent-From: > Resent-To: >, Sami Boutros >, > Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 7:00 PM Working Group, We are anticipating a forthcoming WG last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 . We will conduct an IPR poll before the last call is started. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? Note that there are currently no IPR disclosures in the Datatracker. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to thi= s email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any additional relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PALS WG email list.* The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PALS 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. This call will remain open until we've heard back from all of the authors a= nd contributors. Thanks, Andy --_000_D4EEA4FF8BB55paragjciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <4968E2B071B72E4497AE788E3C78D960@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.

Thanks
Parag


From: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at = 1:36 AM
To: Sami Boutros <sboutros@vmware.com>
Cc: "Andrew G. Malis" <= ;agmalis@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-pals-p2= mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-iet= f-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: Parag Jain <paragj@cisco.com>, <sboutros@vmware.com>, <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2= 017 at 1:36 AM

I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.

Sam

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:20 PM, Sami Boutros <sboutros@vmware.com> wrote:

I am not aware of any IPR.

Thanks,

Sami

From: "Andrew G. Malis" &= lt;agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 7:= 00 PM
To: "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.o= rg" <draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pa= ls-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent-To: <paragj@cisco.com>, Sami Boutros <sboutros@vmware.com>, <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 14, 201= 7 at 7:00 PM

Working Group,

We are anticipating a forthcoming WG last call for

We will conduct an IPR poll before the last call is started.

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to 
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-p= ing-01?

If so, has this IP= R been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

Note that there are currently no IPR disclosures in the Datatracker.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to thi= s
email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any additional relevant=
IPR. *The respon= se needs to be sent to the PALS WG email list.* The
document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the = PALS 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 ha= s not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

This call will remain open until we’ve = heard back from all of the authors and 
contributors.

Thanks,
Andy

 --_000_D4EEA4FF8BB55paragjciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Mar 15 08:01:22 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11661315F9; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:01:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.905 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20=0.093, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sJUp66Lm9OWx; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x235.google.com (mail-ot0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8721315FA; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x37so21386972ota.2; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:01:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kyUAfk8cIOTrfdUfFlVn+DVE7oom73OOcOl4u7dtURI=; b=Y0Lneguheiu7hslVdjPoTWouSpUitlYHqJn+2pQzxx/MYbNUeDCtgEjRDHl2lusArP ZTLjAmA3zzuevDesoEPEyz/9ykcxvjAwu72i0EuAiTu4I7zFPkdgs3N+iZVqOVCXaBUr idAArR8iI3+F3sjH5om/YRlZHP6dx7+IEA+qrxE1XYhsvn56uB/P/koNhy8mJCQGkUPk Sa7NOnBIQnhnk38Xf9A1W5/evdWycrEzAXz7LaAZOP4idhpgdcr4VN6StZPJ8csytTbA meCgjO7OmsHzQcLq+WWT5CmM5xWG17w64k+MUlhOxxEA092cBnTbUb74vV2L1zqlKyoR MXng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kyUAfk8cIOTrfdUfFlVn+DVE7oom73OOcOl4u7dtURI=; b=p0XQZQkr3Gy7wXiWULyBQI160423xvPJvMEUVMYxwRS8m4mHco4o85Xw+3FFlj2Yk3 caWQJFvdLoZaFOWufWo4zD+lX0EZDm+ra/pklldnCMk7/lEaM1paWWbwF6fhOCIKOnfe Y3YiSu3zoPc4eVtlACJb8McN1L6dYDab6zF6Inc3FTpwjcqEjQTWeU7mNyLiil92+Rsw cgMG1gk2s4baKqhRkADInIvh1NxyRA3FcL5IhukjQYKyd0V/+qTRkVkKXeoTjaamEgzm sHDOnxsEAQSp46pM9c2W/TJW/ikFbU9zdgYm+zUWDGP5ylc1bkI8WjjG7co50DIjpvZQ tWJA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3GzJ2n9N9VvJwmBURG4s4lC5HqRmLqrBoN86OwGIryRieJfrF5+WBY3/L94pYk6lItZozjwMfzSdrD3g== X-Received: by 10.157.82.171 with SMTP id f43mr1714553oth.191.1489590074527; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.85.229 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:00:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:00:54 -0400 Message-ID: To: "pals@ietf.org" Cc: draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f4030437965c40d755054ac637f0 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] PALS Working Group last call for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:01:21 -0000 --f4030437965c40d755054ac637f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Having heard from all of the authors regarding IPR, this starts the WG last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 . Because it=E2=80=99s over IETF week, this last call will last for three wee= ks, ending on April 5. Please review the draft and send all comments to pals@ietf.org. Thanks, Andy --f4030437965c40d755054ac637f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Having hear= d from all of the authors regarding IPR, this starts the WG=C2=A0last= =C2=A0call=C2=A0for=C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-= pw-lsp-ping-01=C2= =A0. Because it=E2=80=99s over IETF week, this=C2=A0last=C2=A0call= =C2=A0will=C2=A0last=C2=A0for three weeks, ending on April 5. Please re= view the draft and send all comments to=C2=A0pals@i= etf.org.

Thanks,
Andy

--f4030437965c40d755054ac637f0-- From nobody Wed Mar 15 08:57:50 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D0C1316E0; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.738 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xfDVAukzb5wX; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x236.google.com (mail-ot0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED791316BF; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x236.google.com with SMTP id o24so23382811otb.1; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qdDm72CAZsbSv5crcBk+mYGcbXW/Tal5/tcCXLTSPGc=; b=ia6ZWG+fxa+Jw2jtCyh+A8hhZvg5XxGdqius7eYJOBoqSKGNkuTKJKamZhKvMyWIoD vHgCOo38uqwi1jaVWQhQBQZm0v5VR8k0AtjT4b9QQEWqfLmlIfmntYqeJ2beBe+co5co ydCv7IJDdz5DXdMkHG1noJd4PrYRrwik4KWuT+d2cHmglckY9OcVXYvX2Je1JJb4Cp8D POYSM5aORrXvAYn6K5IAagty5y0T1RMSD6aPeau/37WnUucfV6E7cQp/X0bL6CB7yR76 VsoilTJItT+QeAsPLj8mv8aspt8gixmjiiYKgLzuzWb1LwtgCA2C+JCMPvoQ1xgZyLKO K5ZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qdDm72CAZsbSv5crcBk+mYGcbXW/Tal5/tcCXLTSPGc=; b=AOhsN31HegVa/enknyzPFqDt15bJTKMRigzDFxYDcN8mvcb9oMjh3BaigmFOYX/fZx f1/RGReI3laYLCrictU3A6j0QQfZ/snHSQOfn6/Yy0VQnGJ6QhWS6iDLIOnT8PvXm1cM l3sYary3LPg5gsawUhuA4jtQlOwWGCBYEpzAay+S8qaNV57abotq7PUEKj918AQIDZGq 27oGC0f2icCSKvwGo2vz1154VDCDPajrWhfyqao/V42ADCa5Dmi2/Xuj+KK/v81FbJz7 aCMXkFnnXRmcqaHusmreAJDaFs4lUIAuXCX7v3RsLnHlsIQXm2fz7EitVzgYp4ypRFcR Nhmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2S0ZnA9Pv5R4hFx8d41EzPCpGQhfp/PKf405Js4uE+ZJ3hdm582ADSd30lt+SIBhab+BczXfqb4Ka/RA== X-Received: by 10.157.82.22 with SMTP id e22mr2314263oth.76.1489593464455; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:57:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:57:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:57:44 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Andrew G. Malis" Cc: "pals@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403043546d84f07f7054ac7014d Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] PALS Working Group last call for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:57:49 -0000 --f403043546d84f07f7054ac7014d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Authors, please find my WG LC comments below: - per RFC 5586 GAL can be used to identify OAM payload but it is not necessary for PW. We can use PW ACH per RFC 4385 without putting GAL in; - it is not clear what "IP ACH Channel header" is. Is it IP ACH Channel type? But MPLS G-ACh Types registry doesn't have IP ACH type but IPv4 (0x0021) and IPv6 (0x0057) types. Regards, Greg On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Having heard from all of the authors regarding IPR, this starts the WG > last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft- > ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01 . Because it=E2=80=99s over IETF week, this= last > call will last for three weeks, ending on April 5. Please review the > draft and send all comments to pals@ietf.org. > > Thanks, > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > Pals mailing list > Pals@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals > > --f403043546d84f07f7054ac7014d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Authors,
please find my WG LC comments below:
  • per RFC 5586 GAL can be used to identify OAM payload but it = is not necessary for PW. We can use PW ACH per RFC 4385 without putting GAL= in;
  • it is not clear what "IP ACH Channel header" is. Is = it IP ACH Channel type? But=C2=A0MPLS G-ACh Types= registry=C2=A0doesn't have IP ACH type but IPv4 (0x0021= )=C2=A0and IPv6 (0x0057)=C2=A0types.=C2=A0
    • Regards,
Greg
=
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Andrew G. M= alis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
Havin= g heard from all of the authors regarding IPR, this starts the WG=C2=A0last=C2=A0call=C2=A0for=C2=A0= https://= tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-01=C2=A0. Because it=E2=80=99s = over IETF week, this=C2=A0las= t=C2=A0call=C2=A0will=C2=A0last=C2=A0for three= weeks, ending on April 5. Please review the draft and send all comments to= =C2=A0pals@ietf.org.
=

Thanks,
Andy


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
Pals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals


--f403043546d84f07f7054ac7014d-- From nobody Wed Mar 15 17:07:56 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB5112ECF5; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lmUYZMx30sCe; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 392BE12EA7A; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A70FAB81428; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, pals@ietf.org Message-Id: <20170316000739.A70FAB81428@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] RFC 8104 on Pseudowire (PW) Endpoint Fast Failure Protection X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:07:54 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8104 Title: Pseudowire (PW) Endpoint Fast Failure Protection Author: Y. Shen, R. Aggarwal, W. Henderickx, Y. Jiang Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2017 Mailbox: yshen@juniper.net, raggarwa_1@yahoo.com, wim.henderickx@nokia.com, jiangyuanlong@huawei.com Pages: 43 Characters: 94878 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pals-endpoint-fast-protection-05.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8104 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8104 This document specifies a fast mechanism for protecting pseudowires (PWs) transported by IP/MPLS tunnels against egress endpoint failures, including egress attachment circuit (AC) failure, egress provider edge (PE) failure, multi-segment PW terminating PE failure, and multi-segment PW switching PE failure. Operating on the basis of multihomed customer edge (CE), redundant PWs, upstream label assignment, and context-specific label switching, the mechanism enables local repair to be performed by the router upstream adjacent to a failure. The router can restore a PW in the order of tens of milliseconds, by rerouting traffic around the failure to a protector through a pre-established bypass tunnel. Therefore, the mechanism can be used to reduce traffic loss before global repair reacts to the failure and the network converges on the topology changes due to the failure. This document is a product of the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Fri Mar 17 15:01:23 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53084129527; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.47.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk CC: db3546@att.com, Stewart Bryant , pals@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <148978807524.21306.5377035524550139611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:01:15 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Last Call: (MPLS LSP PW status refresh reduction for Static Pseudowires) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 22:01:15 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services WG (pals) to consider the following document: - 'MPLS LSP PW status refresh reduction for Static Pseudowires' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-31. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes a method for generating an aggregated pseudowire status message transmitted on a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) to indicate the status of one or more pseudowires carried on the LSP. The method for transmitting the pseudowire (PW) status information is not new, however this protocol extension allows a Service Provider (SP) to reliably monitor the individual PW status while not overwhelming the network with multiple periodic status messages. This is achieved by sending a single cumulative summary status verification message for all the PWs grouped in the same LSP. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2818/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1604/ From nobody Tue Mar 28 00:35:34 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6335129413; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:35:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?utf-8?b?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVy?= To: Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.48.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149068651891.30599.6466255675652833743@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:35:18 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 07:35:19 -0000 Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder Review result: Has Nits Disclaimer: I have not much clue about MPLS LSP PWs and hence I am reading this from a perspective of a clueless outsider. Section 1.2 is not really about terminology but instead it basically expands acronyms. The section does not define any terms or does it make it clear where terms are defined. A reader who does not know T-PE will not be pointed to a document that defines 'Terminating Provider Edge Node of MS-PW'. I usally find terminology sections more useful if they say where definitions of terms get be found. Section 3: s/the the/the/ Section 4: What is the 'Version' field in the message format? Section 4: There is an 8-bit field marked U C Flags and I _assume_ the U and C bits are the 'first' two bits and the 'remaining bits are the flags managed by IANA. Perhaps make this clearer, e.g.: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Last Received Seq Number | Message Type |U|C| Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Or alternatively simply name the entire 8-bit flags field like you do in the text where you refer to Message Flags and then explain in the text under the 'Message Flags' that the first two bits have a fixed meaning. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Last Received Seq Number | Message Type | Message Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This option carries less information but then you use 'Message Flags' in several places and you also request an IANA registry for Message Flags where the U and C bit are allocated. Looking at the IANA text, it says 'bit position' 0 and 1. Not sure this is clear enough, you seem to number bits in the order 0, 1, 2, ... It turns out we have several slightly different labels further down in the document for this flags field throughout the document - this makes searching in the text difficult, please use a single consistent name for this message field. Section 8.2 says values 1 and 2 are defined in this document but then it seems value 3 is also allocated, no? Subsections of section 8 switches several times between decimal and hexadecimal numbers. Perhaps things get clearer if a single number system (e.g., hexadecimal) is used when talking about a specific registry. Numbers like 134,217,728 look somewhat confusing, 0x8000000 seems simpler. From nobody Tue Mar 28 05:53:38 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEE31243FE; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:53:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dp2nmqGIThZU; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FA471299A0; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id f193so38920429oib.2; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:53:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ds0RYZguf7M16ib70UuFhjID9HG/SaRtGyyAAcNJQFU=; b=Ewz8HbPsc/x6sincn9/onaN/i1aJ8x8LEhe9A22ambk8Gzz4byCz+XJ2LoWmemuNp9 hPOejO8cEK8JMWXVEDY/37zDkZiHDv3R9aCTLG8N86HqZ7XxTIekIs8ZwgNNvG8YuTco 3VoYcAQ4sEH4Cfe0+bvcWbpRAkiRq0iAdvCRXc8l52EzOZef3kz2HP6JoLL63ByKx0S3 DDTupUJHYyzNj4fWrEZ0MM76Z8qvCIpuItKTEp/mkqHM3xUyROjAXv5ROuN58Bte/t+0 ahGX84BLIHxvmhKKM/kTc6hR5RF6tOpUPpxR8QmG5VaFR2pnGoNehv57UREaZjd7EHpc GPhQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ds0RYZguf7M16ib70UuFhjID9HG/SaRtGyyAAcNJQFU=; b=MI6iXmnrUW9RbQHjuXPqlMNGcYDBzmpGjXI5neM4cgTp/g9ZPcKbjfaExLVtVKEKHc NUXfngoDlX2duTHVtxKFoMMa4bE/2nm6GTfH4twzHOxPl9JA4oWhjGhqKk0zG8ZlwbpY +phyygFKdB6VfTqoWCyPwNy5bGMPVdUN3rzD2fgch8UbQlskbXUUcAFlnr6ElCWemYsp GBdedukOc2NzMBtwS8MsxOmbS6XAo2w9muGZvC+gdnKiGH8zd7srbC958SfJjNXtb0ug zrzZs9kiox5hbItSW2XwYrfdjT45NjiAh9wF0f4JTV3wzKqGS9wae6KV/mIXi/bV207A WeFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0T1dmHt5/ipZozrJZXWtMw96hgOfJcbyQ9Z5qSnMI0xUWkO6RnQTVohjcnZluwJykJJWWAb6298Po97w== X-Received: by 10.202.207.85 with SMTP id f82mr14836753oig.159.1490705604741; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:53:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.231.201 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:53:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <149068651891.30599.6466255675652833743@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <149068651891.30599.6466255675652833743@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 07:53:04 -0500 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVy?= Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction.all@ietf.org, IETF Discussion , "pals@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113df38c091317054bc9f209 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] Review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:53:31 -0000 --001a113df38c091317054bc9f209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable J=C3=BCrgen, On behalf of the PALS WG, thanks for the review! Cheers, Andy On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 AM, J=C3=BCrgen Sch=C3=B6nw=C3=A4lder < j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > Reviewer: J=C3=BCrgen Sch=C3=B6nw=C3=A4lder > Review result: Has Nits > > Disclaimer: I have not much clue about MPLS LSP PWs and hence I am > reading this from a perspective of a clueless outsider. > > Section 1.2 is not really about terminology but instead it basically > expands acronyms. The section does not define any terms or does it > make it clear where terms are defined. A reader who does not know > T-PE > will not be pointed to a document that defines 'Terminating Provider > Edge Node of MS-PW'. I usally find terminology sections more useful > if > they say where definitions of terms get be found. > > Section 3: s/the the/the/ > > Section 4: What is the 'Version' field in the message format? > > Section 4: There is an 8-bit field marked U C Flags and I _assume_ > the > U and C bits are the 'first' two bits and the 'remaining bits are the > flags managed by IANA. Perhaps make this clearer, e.g.: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Last Received Seq Number | Message Type |U|C| Flags | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Or alternatively simply name the entire 8-bit flags field like you do > in the text where you refer to Message Flags and then explain in the > text under the 'Message Flags' that the first two bits have a fixed > meaning. > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Last Received Seq Number | Message Type | Message Flags | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > This option carries less information but then you use 'Message Flags' > in several places and you also request an IANA registry for Message > Flags where the U and C bit are allocated. Looking at the IANA text, > it says 'bit position' 0 and 1. Not sure this is clear enough, you > seem to number bits in the order 0, 1, 2, ... > > It turns out we have several slightly different labels further down > in > the document for this flags field throughout the document - this > makes > searching in the text difficult, please use a single consistent name > for this message field. > > Section 8.2 says values 1 and 2 are defined in this document but then > it seems value 3 is also allocated, no? > > Subsections of section 8 switches several times between decimal and > hexadecimal numbers. Perhaps things get clearer if a single number > system (e.g., hexadecimal) is used when talking about a specific > registry. Numbers like 134,217,728 look somewhat confusing, 0x8000000 > seems simpler. > > > --001a113df38c091317054bc9f209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
J=C3=BCrgen= ,

=
On behalf of the = PALS WG, thanks for the review!

Cheers,
Andy


On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 AM, J=C3=BCrgen Sch=C3=B6nw=C3=A4l= der <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
Reviewer: J=C3=BCrgen Sch=C3=B6n= w=C3=A4lder
Review result: Has Nits

Disclaimer: I have not much clue about MPLS LSP PWs and hence I am
reading this from a perspective of a clueless outsider.

Section 1.2 is not really about terminology but instead it basically
expands acronyms. The section does not define any terms or does it
make it clear where terms are defined. A reader who does not know
T-PE
will not be pointed to a document that defines 'Terminating Provider Edge Node of MS-PW'. I usally find terminology sections more useful
if
they say where definitions of terms get be found.

Section 3: s/the the/the/

Section 4: What is the 'Version' field in the message format?

Section 4: There is an 8-bit field marked U C Flags and I _assume_
the
U and C bits are the 'first' two bits and the 'remaining bits a= re the
flags managed by IANA. Perhaps make this clearer, e.g.:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= -+-+-+-+
=C2=A0 =C2=A0|=C2=A0 Last Received Seq Number=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| Message = Type=C2=A0 |U|C|=C2=A0 =C2=A0Flags=C2=A0 =C2=A0|
=C2=A0 =C2=A0+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= -+-+-+-+

Or alternatively simply name the entire 8-bit flags field like you do
in the text where you refer to Message Flags and then explain in the
text under the 'Message Flags' that the first two bits have a fixed=
meaning.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= -+-+-+-+
=C2=A0 =C2=A0|=C2=A0 Last Received Seq Number=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| Message = Type=C2=A0 | Message Flags |
=C2=A0 =C2=A0+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= -+-+-+-+

This option carries less information but then you use 'Message Flags= 9;
in several places and you also request an IANA registry for Message
Flags where the U and C bit are allocated. Looking at the IANA text,
it says 'bit position' 0 and 1. Not sure this is clear enough, you<= br> seem to number bits in the order 0, 1, 2, ...

It turns out we have several slightly different labels further down
in
the document for this flags field throughout the document - this
makes
searching in the text difficult, please use a single consistent name
for this message field.

Section 8.2 says values 1 and 2 are defined in this document but then
it seems value 3 is also allocated, no?

Subsections of section 8 switches several times between decimal and
hexadecimal numbers. Perhaps things get clearer if a single number
system (e.g., hexadecimal) is used when talking about a specific
registry. Numbers like 134,217,728 look somewhat confusing, 0x8000000
seems simpler.



--001a113df38c091317054bc9f209-- From nobody Thu Mar 30 07:53:09 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700F3129517; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:53:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Yaron Sheffer To: Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.49.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149088558240.15511.14051374750329617951@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:53:02 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:53:03 -0000 Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer Review result: Ready This document proposes a way to aggregate status messages of multiple pseudowires carried on the same MPLS-network LSP. The Security Considerations simply refer to an earlier RFC, and this makes sense in this case. However from a broader perspective, I think the community should consider another look at its security assumptions. After what we've seen in recent years, maybe it's not a good idea to refer back to a 2006 document that contains this sentence: "To prevent unwanted packet insertion, it is also important to prevent unauthorized physical access to the PSN," We have all learned the hard way that this advice is not practical - bad actors WILL get physical access to your network. From nobody Fri Mar 31 08:39:37 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3DC112950A; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:39:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dan Romascanu To: Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.49.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149097476468.4284.16899240629504751438@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:39:24 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:39:25 -0000 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at . Document: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-?? Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 2017-03-31 IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-31 IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-13 Summary: This document describes a very useful optimization for MPLS LSP PWs operations by defining a method for generating an aggregated PW status message transmitted on a MPLS LSP to indicate the status of the PWs carried on the LSP. The document is clear, detailed and provides all needed information for implementers to write code and for operators to deploy. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: 1. In section 8, first paragraph: s/rages/ranges/ 2. In sections 8.3, 8.4 the construct "IETF Review" is worded in three different ways (IETF review, IETF Review, "IETF Review") - better align