Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-15.txt

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Young,
thank you for your through review and considerate comments.
Please find my answers in-line and tagged GIM>>.
Please let me know whether we should publish the new version or address these comments as part of RFC Editor update.

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Leeyoung [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 12:04 PM
To: Leeyoung; [e-mail]
Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-15.txt

Hi,

Sorry, one of the nits had a nit: I should be:

OLD: The use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the configuration of OAM
   functions is defined in a technology agnostic way in [RFC7260].
NEW: [RFC7260] defines use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the configuration of OAM
   functions in a technology agnostic way.
GIM>> Accepted, done.

Thanks,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: rtg-dir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Leeyoung
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 12:36 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-15.txt

Hello, 

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. 

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-15.txt
Reviewer: Young Lee
Review Date: 19 January, 2015
IETF LC End Date: not sure
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

This document specifies the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP OAM functions carried by the GMPLS RSVP-TE protocols based on the OAM Configuration Framework for GMPLS RSVP-TE. The document is in good shape but there are a few points that should be clarified to improve the readability. 

Major Issues:

None
GIM>> Thank you

Minor Issues:

None
GIM>> Thank you

Nits:

1) In Abstract and other parts, should 'pro-active' be replaced with 'proactive'? Perhaps, there may be a reason for the hyphen, but I was not sure. 
GIM>> I find that 'proactive' is more common form. Accepted and updated.
 
2) In Introduction, I would suggest:

OLD: The use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the configuration of OAM
   functions is defined in a technology agnostic way in [RFC7260].
NEW: [RFC7260] defines The use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the configuration of OAM
   functions is defined in a technology agnostic way.
GIM>> I think that the very first note addresses this change already.

3) In Introduction (the second paragraph), I am not sure if you need, 'the Transport Profile of MPLS' after MPLS-TP. 
GIM>> I think it is acceptable, somewhat conversational form.

4) In Introduction (the fourth paragraph), is there any reference for the last sentence, "Additionally, there is a number of Fault Management Signals that can be configured."? Also suggest:
GIM>> Added reference to RFC  6427.

OLD: Additionally
New: Additionally, 
GIM>> Done

5) In Section 3.1 (the second paragraph): This sub-TLV as has to be examined... I would suggest replacing 'has to be' to either MUST or SHOULD. 
GIM>> Updated " This sub-TLV MUST be examined even by intermediate nodes that support these extensions ..."

6) In Section 3.2: - "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", which MUST be included if the CC
      and/or the CV OAM Function flag is set. It was not clear to me where the CC and/or CV OAM Function Flag is set. Reference would be good. I presume it is the OAM Configuration TLV in [RFC7260]. 
GIM>> Updated " "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", which MUST be included if either the CC, the CV or both OAM Function flags being set in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV [RFC7260]."

7) I have similar comments as 6) throughout this section when you refer to 'N' flag, 'I' flag, etc. 
GIM>> Is this the following:
" "Performance Monitoring sub-TLV", which MUST be included if any of the PM/Delay, PM/Loss or PM/Throughput flags are set in the "OAM Function Flag sub-TLV [RFC7260]." (reference added)

8) In Section 3.2:

 OLD: - MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV MAY be empty, i.e. have no Value.
      Then its Length MUST be 8.  Then all OAM functions that have their
      corresponding flags set in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" MUST
      be assigned their default values or left disabled.

 NEW: - If MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV MAY be empty, i.e. have no Value,
      then its Length MUST be 8 and all OAM functions that have their
      corresponding flags set in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" MUST
      be assigned their default values or left disabled.
GIM>> I think "If" and "MAY" don't match in the same sentence. I think it is one or another. 'MAY' being normative seems more suitable.

 OLD: - sub-TLV that doesn't have corresponding flag set MUST be
      silently ignored;

 NEW: - Sub-TLV.... (Capitalize) 
GIM>> Done and s/;/./ Then capitalized next line, s/if/If/ as suggested below.

 OLD: - if multiple copies of a sub-TLV are present, then only the first
      sub-TLV MUST be used and the remaining sub-TLVs MUST be silently
      ignored.

 NEW: - If multiple.... (Capitalize) 

9) Section 3.2.1, it would be easier to trace if you would reference for the first sentence, similar to comment 4). 
GIM>> Updated to:
"If the CV flag is set in the OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV [RFC7260], then ..."

Thanks,
Young