RE: Two week Last Call on LMP

["Robin Qiu" <robin_qiu@hotmail.com>]

Hi,

A few comments/questions/requests. Appreciate your response:
1. In secion 2 "LMP Overview", paragraph 7, it says "however,
   (for link connectivity verification procedure) the
   control channel MUST terminate on the same two nodes that the
   TE link spans". Why is this a requirement? This prevents a
   "proxy" LMP implementation.
2. In section 3.2.1, it says "Once it has both sent and received a
   Hello message, the control channel moves to the UP state". Should
   a "valid" (expected RcvSeqNum) Hello be received before moving to
   UP state?
3. In section 4 "Link Property Correlation MUST be done before the
   link is brought up". Is it necessary to be "MUST"? Ramesh S.
   brought up this issue too and Jonathan answered.
4. Section 5 "Verify Link Connectivity", paragraph 9 "It is also
   permissible for the sender to terminate the Test procedure
   without receiving a TestStatusSuccess or TestStatusFailure
   message by sending an EndVerify message". This seems misleading
   that the sender can't terminate the Test procedure in other
   situations. Can it be more straightforward like this "It is also
   permissible for the sender to terminate the Test procedure anytime
   after sending BeginVerify. An EndVerify message SHOULD be sent
   for this purpose."?
5. In section 7 "Message_Id Usage", can something be added to describe
   how to identify a message_id value wrapping? Because the message_id
   is made by the other node, it is impossible to know when it wraps
   without some common rule. For example, can we dictate that
   message_id be incremented by 1?
6. In section 8 "Graceful Restart", it doesn't cover the scenario where
   both ends restart. In this case, both sides must process the
   LinkSummary process as described in section 4.
7. In section 12.1 "Control Channel FSM", if a CC is brought down
   administratively by one side, should it only be brought up by that
   same side? Based on the current specification, either side can bring
   it up again.
8. In section 13, is 140 officially assigned to LMP?
9. In 13.6.5, 13.6.6, can object <VERIFY_ID> be put at the end of the
   object list for both EndVerifyAck and Test, i.e.
   <EndVerifyAck>::=<CommonHeader><MESSAGE_ID_ACK><VERIFY_ID>
   <Test>::=<CommonHeader><LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID><VERIFY_ID>
   This is consistent with other messages, so that it is easier to
   comply with the recommendation "The transmission order SHOULD be
   followed".
10. In general, can default values be suggested for various LMP timers?
11. In section 14.9 "BEGIN_VERIFY Class", what is the expected usage
    for "Number of Data Links" on the receiving side? The Test process
    is driven by the sending side until a EndVerify is received. Should
    receiving side count the number of data links tested and take some
    action after it exceeds "number of data links"?
12. In section 14.12 "TE_LINK Class", don't know who has the authority
    to request this, but C-Type=4 should be reserved for OIF, just as
    in LOCAL_LINK_ID Class (14.3.1).

Regards,

Robin Qiu

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:00 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Two week Last Call on LMP


Hi All,

This is to announce a two week Last Call on the LMP draft:
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt.  This Last Call ends COB Wed Nov 28.

Please send questions, comments and requests for clarifications
to the CCAMP list.

Kireeti.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp