Re: [bmwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-09.txt> (Methodology for benchmarking MPLS protection mechanisms) to Informational RFC

["Jay Karthik (jakarthi)" <[e-mail]>]

Greg,

First of all, apologies in getting back to you this late. Even though we incorporated your comments in the most recent version (-10, published on 5/29), a formal response to your comments should have been made sooner.

Please see inline marked (JK) for the specific response to your comments.

Thanks for your thorough review.

Best,
Jay

I'm concerned with the very title of the document, Methodology for benchmarking MPLS protection mechanisms, even though only MPLS-TE FRR being considered while LSP end-to-end and segment protection implicitly being kept out of the scope.

JK: Modified the title to be more explicit in the most recent version posted.

I've found several textual inaccuracies related to both MPLS and BFD to make me wonder if the document was liasioned to MPLS WG.
List of acronyms is missing - PLR, OIR, LOS, AIS, etc.

JK: PLR is defined in Term RFC 6414 that we are referencing. OIR Is mentioned in Appendix B. Other acronyms such as AIS and LOS are added in rev 10.

Introduction. I think that for "planned link or node failure" MBB is more efficient and useful than FRR. But MBB is not being mentioned in the document.

JK: We have used the term Revision which implies MBB

Introduction. "A correlated failure is the simultaneous occurrence of two or more failures." Personally, as correlated events I consider events with cause-effect relationship.
Introduction. Path restoration after FRR discussion does not appear logical, in the scope of benchmarking document.

JK: We have modified section 5.6

Document Scope. "Protection from Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is outside the scope of this document." I frankly couldn't decode this sentense.

JK: Addressed in rev 10

Document Scope. Several references to Path Restoration as Re-optimization - doubt that it belongs in the document at all.

JK: Section 5.6 adds more color to this discussion

Sections 6.1.1 through 6.2.4 - what is relevance of listing numbers of labels in the stack?

JK: Convergence, performance may be dependent on the label stack depth.

Peerformance of control plane should be outside of the scope of benchmarking as it is end-to-end metrics, not explicitly of DUT.

JK: Scope modified