Draft response to MFA liaison

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The MFA sent us https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file487.txt 
with an attachment that is their "straw-ballot" text of an MPLS 
Inter-Carrier Interconnect (MPLS-ICI) specification at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file481.pdf.

We were requested to respond by 18th October.

Many of the contributors to the document are participants on this list, so 
it is my expectation that the level of comments may be low.

I noticed a couple of issues reading the document and propose the following 
as a starting-point for a response liaison.

Please send comments on what I have written and also any new ideas in time 
for me to send the liaison on October 15th.

Thanks,
Adrian

===
Dear David and Rao,

Thank you for sharing your MPLS-ICI specification during straw-ballot. As 
you will be aware, many of the contributors to your document also 
participate in the CCAMP working group, so the level of comments is 
understandably low.

We do have the following observations for your consideration.

1. References.

In your liaison to us dated 31st August 2007 you said: "In our 
specifications we are limited to referring only to documents
that have been progressed to the RFC editor queue and beyond." Yet in this 
document you refer to several Internet-Drafts that have not reached this 
stage. It may be hoped that these drafts will progress before your final 
ballot.
The following list of references falls into this category:
- draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te
- draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp
- draft-ietf-bfd-base
- draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop
- draft-ietf-mpls-bfd (you probably mean draft-ietf-bfd-mpls)
- draft-ietf-idr-route-filter
- draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements
- draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-mib
- draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-mpls-mib
- draft-ietf-bfd-mib

2. Bidirectional Function at the ICI

In the CNI spec you liaised to us before used GMPLS protocols, in particular 
to be able to support bidirectional services. Looking at the ICI 
specification it is unclear whether you intend to have this level of 
support.

Looking at Annex D there is no reference to any protocol specification, 
although there is a reference to the CNI. Further the references table in 
section 5 does not reference RFC3473.

Lastly, if it is your intention to support GMPLS signaling, you may also 
need to reference the GMPLS signaling MIB modules.

3. Broken Reference

In D.2.3 you reference RFC3471 for RSVP-TE Graceful Restart. This is not the 
reference you intend. It is unclear whether you mean RFC3209, RFC3473, or 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext, or possibly all of these.

Best regards,
Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard
IETF CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs