Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <> Tue, 20 October 2015 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21631AD375; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cjsx1NAz2kab; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A5DA1AD373; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CCT51997; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 02:34:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:34:10 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:34:04 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <>
To: Robert Sparks <>, General Area Review Team <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
Thread-Index: AQHRCFoBAjbu6kcumUySNbKvi0Guup5yhQ/w
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 02:34:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 02:34:19 -0000

Hi Robert, 

Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Please see my replies inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 5:31 AM
> To: General Area Review Team;;;
> Subject: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the
> IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Document: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 16 Oct 2015
> IETF LC End Date: 19 Oct 2015
> IESG Telechat date: 22 Oct 2015
> Summary: Almost ready for publication as PS but with issues that need to be
> discussed/addressed
> This document is hard to read. It is more acronym-laden than it needs to be.

We will expand the acronyms on first use in next revision.

> -----
> There is a process issue that the IESG should pay attention to.
> The shepherd writeup says this:
>    "There is one IPR declaration (1911) raised in November 2012 against
>     an early version of the draft.  There was no discussion in the WG
>     related to this."
> That happens sometimes, but it's much better to have a real indication that the
> group considered the disclosure and explicitly decided not to change directions.
> -----

I hope Andy and Deborah have solved your concern on this.

> The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph (declaring multi-homing on both sides of
> an S-PE out of scope) should be moved earlier in the document.
> The introduction and perhaps even the abstract can be clearer about what _is_
> in scope.

Agreed, will move it to the introduction of the document.

> It needs to be clearer where the normative description of behavior is.
> I think you're intending it to be the first part of section 3. I have not worked
> through the references enough to ensure that it is complete.

Yes, the first part of section 3 defines the operation of S-PE.

> The third paragraph starts off "In general, ...". Are there any specific cases
> where the requirements that follow do not hold? If so, there needs to be more
> description. If not, please delete "In general,".

We will remove "in general" in next revision.

> Are sections 3.1 and 3.2 supposed to be only examples? Would the specification
> of the protocol be complete if they were deleted? If not, something needs to be
> moved up into the main part of section 3.
> For instance, is the SHOULD at the end of 3.1 a requirement placed by this
> document, or is it restating a requirement from somewhere else?
> Similarly, please inspect the SHOULD in the second paragraph of 3.2.
> I also suggest moving 3.1 and 3.2 into their own section, clearly labeling them
> as examples.

Good question. The last sentence of section 3.1 and 3.2 can be moved up into the main part.

Since section 3.1 and 3.2 specifies the typical scenarios, my feeling is they are more than examples. May be better to keep them in section 3?

> Is it worth more explanation in the document why you've added the MUST NOT
> in the first paragraph of section 3?

Because if S-PE Bypass Mode is used, the S-PE will not receive the PW status message originated by T-PEs. We will add some explanation about this.

> The security considerations section only points off to other documents.
> Most of those just point to each other. Chasing it back, there's some meat in the
> security considerations section of 4447, and some in 5085, but it's a real chase
> to find what's relevant.  Please consider calling out what an implementer
> needs to consider explicitly here.

Since this document is mainly about reusing the redundancy mechanisms of RFC6870 on the S-PE nodes, we think the security considerations of these referenced documents could suffice.
And for an implementer IMO there is nothing new to be considered.

Best regards,