Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03.txt WG last call

[Carlos Pignataro <cpignata at cisco.com>]

Yaakov, Tom,

On 3/24/2009 8:44 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/24/09 5:42 PM, "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s at rad.com> wrote:
> 
>> Carlos
>>
>> I am not happy with putting this information in an "MPLS-TP" document,
>> especially one which discusses using the VCCV channel
>> (or whatever it is being called there) for non-PWs.
>>
>> I would have no problem with a simple statement that
>> if non-valid channel types are received then the packet should be discarded.
> 
>     I thought this was the default behavior, but if it helps interop, it
> doesn't hurt anything so we should put it in there.
> 

I very much agree in principle, and would like to add such statement;
but want to be a bit more cautious in practice, when also weighting in
Stewart's and Sasha's previous comments on the subject:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10038.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10041.html

If we add such statement, would this document need to update RFC5085?
How do we define "non-valid channel types" in a forward-looking way and
without duplicating the text in ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal (text welcome)?
Note that ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal does not explicitly says it applies to
PWs. Chairs, what are your thoughts on this (esp. re. the Updates)?

If we add such statement, I think the right place would be as a
continuation of the last paragraph of Section 3.2 of ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd.
Right?

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

>     --Tom
> 
> 
>> Y(J)S
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Carlos Pignataro [mailto:cpignata at cisco.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 19:38
>> To: Yaakov Stein
>> Cc: pwe3 at ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03.txt WG last call
>>
>> Yaakov,
>>
>> That issue is larger than the vccv-bfd draft, and needs an update to
>> RFC5085 (to be done by the GAL/GACH document according to
>> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10040.html>), plus
>> I think we wouldn't want to duplicate text in this doc that would need
>> to be kept in sync.
>>
>> However, do you think we should add an Informative pointer to
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-02#section-5> in
>> draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd, saying that "the procedures for handling
>> unrecognized or unsupported ACH Channel Types are specified in S5 of
>> [GACH]"? And if so, where exactly in draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd (since it
>> does not appear to be a proper anchor place for such text)? Other
>> ideas/text?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- Carlos.
>>
>> On 3/24/2009 1:18 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>> Yes, I remember now the discussion about the 0 channel type
>>> being wrong, and agree that the breakdown is right.
>>>
>>> However, there is still the problem of what to do with a 0
>>> (or any other undefined value).
>>>
>>> Sorry that I missed the previous discussion on this point.
>>>
>>> Even if it will be explained in more detail elsewhere,
>>> it would be nice to say something to keep the documents self-contained.
>>>
>>> Y(J)S
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3 at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>