Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become an mplswg document

From: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:20:11 -0500

Rolf,
 
    Earlier you had the following comments (our response embedded):
 
Section 2: 

> Quote:  For the management interface to the management system, an
MPLS-

>         TP NE is not expected to actively support more than one

>         management protocol in any given deployment. The protocol to
be

>         supported is at the discretion of the operator.

> In terms of requirements shouldn't that rather be "...an MPLS-TP NE
MAY

> actively support more than one  management protocol..."

This proposed change could be interpretted to mean very nearly the
opposite of what was

intended.  But the current wording could use improvement.  We spent some
time figuring 

out what we feel is an appropriate compromise and we propose to change
the applicable

text to read:

"For the management interface to the management system, an MPLS-TP NE
MAY

actively support more than one management protocol in any given
deployment. For

example, an MPLS-TP NE may use one protocol for configuration and
another for

monitoring. The protocols to be supported are at the discretion of the
operator."

Section 4:

> The list seems incomplete to me but the text does not make this clear.

> Therefore I would suggest to make the following change:

>         In order to have the MCN operate properly, a number of

>         management functions for the MCN are required

> <add>including</add>:

We propose to add "including"  as you suggest. 

Section 5.3.2:

> Quote: An MPLS-TP NE MUST provide alarm suppression functionality that

>        prevents the generation of a superfluous alarms.

> Remove the "a"

Done.

Section 5.3.4:

> Quote: The MPLS-TP ME SHOULD

>        report local (environmental) alarms

> I assume you mean NE above and not ME as e.g. defined in

> draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework-00

Uh, yeah.  Changed to "NE"...

Section 10 not needed I assume.

Section 10 is IANA considerations, and is a required section.  We
propose at this time

to add text indicating that there is no IANA action required by this
document.

> Hope these are of any help.

> Best,

>     Rolf 

Yes, your comments were helpful and we deeply appreciate your effort and
willingness

to provide them.  Thanks!!

--

Eric