Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-04.txt
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be Sun, 25 February 2007 20:59 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLQSf-0007gw-7y for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:59:13 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLQSb-0003Zr-No for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:59:13 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1HLQD9-000JEE-L1 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:43:11 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.7
Received: from [62.23.212.165] (helo=smail.alcatel.fr) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be>) id 1HLQD7-000JDs-6m; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:43:10 +0000
Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/ICT) with ESMTP id l1PKh4mq005399; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:43:04 +0100
In-Reply-To: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0DB02C9B@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@nuovasystems.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-04.txt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003
Message-ID: <OF97BD1489.617B78B5-ONC125728D.006F1D9A-C125728D.0071CB8D@netfr.alcatel.fr>
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:42:56 +0100
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.13aHF163 | June 23, 2005) at 02/25/2007 21:42:57, Serialize complete at 02/25/2007 21:42:57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.180.81
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3a4bc66230659131057bb68ed51598f8
deborah, all o) section 3.4: processing is clearly indicated but on inter-domain basis one of the issue is that the processing can have to be performed on nodes that will further Notifies toward an AS-path that is completely different from its corresponding TE LSP e.g. A-B-...-C-D, but Notify msg flows along A-F-C-D, or A-B-F-D, we have a situation where B Notify msg toward X would travel via the tail-end (D) and C Notify msg would loop via the head-end (A) - advisable to prevent such thing ----------E-------- | | e.g. A --- B -... X ...- C --- D | | ---------F--------- o) section 6: it is unclear from section 6 why an LSP head-end would ever desire to exercise control re-opt in part. when non-contiguous, at the end the only realistic reason for requesting such kind of request from the head-end is lost of performance e.g increasing loss, delay, etc. there is also a clear diff. between a desirable re-opt. when the LSP is contiguous (and thus triggerable only by the head-end) and a local-/domain-specific resource re-opt. in other cases o) section 7: the document could be more specific for the hello exchanges at inter-domain boundaries - in the same section specific security in using MPLS-BFD for end-to-end TE LSP should be clarified thanks, - d. "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 25/02/2007 21:00 To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> cc: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "JP Vasseur" <jvasseur@cisco.com>, "Arthi Ayyangar" <arthi@nuovasystems.com> Subject: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-04.txt Hi, Here's my review of this I-D to help the authors prepare it for WG last call. In my opinion, the draft is almost ready except for a few minor items and editorials. I encourage the WG to also post any items at this time, so as to allow the authors to efficiently update. If the authors can submit a new version addressing the comments, we can take the I-D forward. Thanks, Deborah ======= Boilerplate Need the new boilerplate ======= Nits: may want to check, a couple of nits on weird spacings and line lengths ======= Section 1 Update for recent work, e.g. [INTER-DOMAIN-FRAMEWORK] is RFC4726, RFC4726 applies for MPLS-TE and GMPLS, requirements for GMPLS are in draft-otani-ccamp-interas-gmpls-te-05.txt. ======= Section 2 text has "supported by one of three options" May want to also mention 4726's hybrid support, probably a small note is all that's needed, e.g. "(or hybrid)". Also, it would be useful to mention something on consideration for 4726's backward compatibility, either here or in a later section. ======= Section 3 item 2 incomplete sentence, a suggestion: s/adhered to./adhered./ also in item 2 s/message an error code/message with error code/ item 3 s/in the Section 3/in Section 3/ item 4 s/option is supplied/option is specified/ ======= Section 3.2 s/information that report/information that reports/ ======= Section 5.1.2 s/(filed link)/(failed link)/ ======= Section 5.1.3 s/domian/domain/ ======= Section 6 s/preferable/more preferred/ s/in order search/in order to search/ ======= Section 7 s/:-/:/ the text says "disallow or ignore hops", I don't think its "ignore"? ====== [LOOSE-REOPT] is now [RFC4736], and Informational, did you want to reference as a Normative Reference? Check and update others. ====== Section 11 JP's email address is up-to-date?
- Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsv… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS
- Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain… Adrian Farrel