Re: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

I would add a comment that this is a default mapping, but not the only one possible, vendors could choose to add configuration commands to re-map differently

- Table 4 EXP mapping

Same comment as for Table 3

- 3.2. Should we say more about control of the ringlet selection? For example a mechanism for MPLS TE backup tunnel (or any other diverse routing path) placement through mapping into the opposite ringlet to the one MAC would select?

thanks

George

From: owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ghanwani, Anoop
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:41 AM
To: STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

Hi Glenn,

I think it would really help readability if you can find a

way to put the PHB names in...just maybe in parenthesis

or even on the line following the DSCP. All that is

needed is something like:

110000 - EF

xxxxxxx - AF11, etc.

Otherwise, the reader would be forced to have a copy of

the DiffServ RFC handy in order to understand this table.

Yes, a clarification with respect to what the table

applies to is needed. In fact, you might need a second

table to talk about L-LSPs since they encode 3 levels

of drop precedence in the EXP bits for AF which then

need to be mapped to the 2-levels supported in 802.17.

I think it would be better to reword the security section

as follows.

"This draft does not introduce any new security concerns

for IEEE 802.17 networks. Some of the existing vulnerabilities

of IEEE 802.17 networks include: ...".

Anoop

From: owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Parsons
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:38 AM
To: STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

Anoop,

On Table 3 we could not really fit the PHB in the ASCII table without making it look too squished, so it was left out.

On LSPs, do you simply want to note that mapping applies to E-LSPs?

And the security section is intentionally thick since we cannot say there are no risks. But perhaps the line you are looking for is the second sentence in item 4 which should be the closing paragraph of section 7.

Cheers,

Glenn

From: Ghanwani, Anoop [mailto:anoop.ghanwani@hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:57 PM
To: Parsons, Glenn [CAR:1A14:EXCH]; STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

Hi Glenn, Mark,

In Table 3, I think it would be useful to also have

the PHB name alongwith the DSCP since the

DSCP values are hard to remember...e.g.

000000 (BE), xxxxxx (AF11) ,etc., in the first

column of the table.

In Sec 5.1.1, I think a distinction needs to be made

for E-LSP and L-LSP. With L-LSPs only the drop

precedence is encoded in the EXP bits.

I'm curious as to why the draft has such a detailed

security considerations section even though by itself

the draft doesn't introduce any new security concerns.

At a minimum, I think a statement to that effect should

appear in the security section.

Anoop

From: owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Parsons
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:16 PM
To: STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

Thanks David,

We can fix most of these I think.

Some of them though (e.g., the sections with no section numbers) are part of the IETF front/back matter and cannot be changed (without changing their style).

Cheers,

Glenn.

From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:36 PM
To: Parsons, Glenn [CAR:1A14:EXCH]
Cc: STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

Glen,

I got of a few of the excessive capitalization, but I suspect

not all.

The 802.3 environment seems very hazardous: everyone there seems

to get a sticky caps key(:>).

Its on the attached pdf. Feel free to discuss, call me into the

meeting, or forward as appropriate.

DVJ

David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Glenn Parsons
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:36 PM
To: STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

Folks,

The first draft of the IPoRPR basic mapping is attached.

This version is slightly different from the IETF officially posted version <draft-ietf-iporpr-basic-00.txt> -- there are some minor corrections to tables 2 & 3. As a result, I'd prefer the group reviews this version.

Note that the primary review mechanism to submit comments to the IETF IPoRPR mailing list -- and you must be a member to post (and get past the spam filter :-).

There is currently no plan for an IPoRPR WG meeting at IETF 63 in Paris.

However, there is agenda time at the IEEE 802.17 meeting in San Francisco next week to discuss this draft.

Cheers,
Glenn

<<draft-ietf-iporpr-basic-00a.html>> <<draft-ietf-iporpr-basic-00a.txt>>