Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

Title: IPoRPR initial draft
George,
 
Thanks for the comments.
 
We need to clean up the identification of optional & mandatory in section 1.2 as you suggest.
 
On the DSCP & EXP mapping to service classes, the intent of this document is to define the default mapping.  Vendors can do what they want -- but should use the mapping in this document if they want to be 'compliant and interoperable'.  We'll add some text to this effect.
 
On ringlet selection, there is no MPLS control of the direction in this document per the charter.  To progress this, the plan is to lay out the reasons for doing this in the next document.
 
Cheers,
Glenn.

From: owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org] On Behalf Of George Suwala (gsuwala)
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:30 PM
To: STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] IPoRPR initial draft

Glenn, Marc,

Good and easy to read document. Some comments:

- 1.2 IEEE 802.17 MAC Service

I would specify  which 3 parameters are mandatory

- Table 3 DSCP Mapping

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>>