Liaison statement
"Response to: LS231 - Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-framework-02" (ref 040.03)

Thank you for your comments, they have been resolved together with
other last call comments. We are now ready to proceed and request
publication.

A diff by the reviewed version and the new will be found at:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-framework-04.txt

The ITU-T comments received liaison (ref 040.02) has been resolved
as follows:

Comment [M1]: Need to clarify that this applies to both LSP and
PW and that management plane configuration is always supported –
See comment M6 on v2.  Another solution for this comment would be
to delete the sentence.

Response: remove text requiring clarification
OLD Text:
Management plane functions such as manual configuration and the
initiation of LSP setup are out of scope of this document.
NEW Text:
Management plane functions are out of scope of this document.

Comment [M2]Extension may also be required for PWs (e.g. OAM
configuration) which may be outside the scope of GMPLS.
Proposed text change: Removed "GMPLS", add "and PW".
Response: Accept change

Comment [M3]Also need to consider upgrades in the context of PW
configuration
Proposed text change: strike "(G)MPLS enabled"
Response: Accept change

Comment [M4]: Similar text was proposed in the comments on v2
but was not included.
Proposed text change: Note that failure or restarting of the
control plane or a change in LSP ownership must not impact the
operation of any protection or OAM functions which were configured
by either the control plane or management plane.
Response: No comment was included in the earlier liaison. Text
was viewed as a statement, not proposed addition. While the
proposed text is not unreasonable, we are unable to add the text
in the proposed location as parallel text does not exist in
RFC5654.

Comment [M5]: See comment M42 on v2. Use of may implies that the CP
design must support extra traffic but activation is optional. RFC5654
Requirement, i.e., extra traffic is not required in MPLS-TP
Proposed text change: strike "may" add "is not required to"
Response: Please see RFC2119 for the usage of "may" in the IETF
context.  We believe the current text is consistent with both
common IETF usage of may and the text in RFC5654.

Comment [M6]: The current wording of 100 and 101 implies a
single control plane, in this case the requirements are
contradictory, add LSP/PW to clarify the scope of each
statement.
Proposed text change: Add "for LSPs", strike "for MPLS-TP LSPs",
add "for PWs" (leave for MPLS-TP PWs)
Response: Accepted.

Comment [M7]Between nodes or along the same path….
Proposed text change: strike "along", add "between"
Response: clarify text:
OLD Text:
along the same node pairs, but not necessarily the same links
NEW Text:
along the same nodal path, but not necessarily the same links
Comment [M8]typo
Response: Accepted.


Loa Andersson on behalf of
Deborah Brungard and Lou Berger

CCAMP Working Group co-chairs