Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-03

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

No Tom, it isn't disregarding or ignoring your comment.
It is fumbling it.

Bad, bad authors.
Naughty step please.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 05 March 2015 00:03
> To: Gen Art; [e-mail]; George Swallow; Vanson
> Lim; Sam Aldrin; [e-mail]; Adrian Farrel
> Subject: Re: Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-03
> 
> Thank you for your update (version -04).
> 
> I cannot see any changes in the -04 version responding to my minor
> issues 2-4. I gather the ambiguity is considered to be in my eyes only.
> 
> Tom Taylor
> 
> On 13/02/2015 1:19 AM, Tom Taylor wrote:
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> >
> > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> > you may receive.
> >
> > Sorry to be so last-minute. Life happens.
> >
> > Tom Taylor
> >
> > Document:  draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-03
> > Reviewer:  Tom Taylor
> > Review Date: 2015-02-12
> > IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-12
> > IESG Telechat date: 2015-02-19
> >
> > Summary: Generally well written, but a few minor issues and a number of
> > nits and editorial suggestions.
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > 1. Section 3.1, "Proxy Echo Parameter TLV MPLS payload size field".
> >
> > This section describes initiator actions, but the paragraph contains the
> > text:
> >
> > " When the payload size is non
> >     zero, if sending the MPLS Echo Request involves using an IP header,
> >     the Do not Fragment (DF) bit MUST be set to 1."
> >
> > This sentence logically belongs in Section 3.2 (3.2.4.1), which has no
> > instructions at all regarding the payload size field.
> >
> > Noted that the description of the MPLS Payload Size field in Section 5.1
> > has a full description, but says the DF bit SHOULD be set. Is it MUST or
> > SHOULD, and if the latter, what is the exception?
> >
> > 2. Section 3.2.1, third paragraph, second sentence currently reads:
> >
> >    "If the Proxy LSR is a budnode, a MPLS
> >     proxy ping reply SHOULD be sent to the initiator with the return code
> >     set to 3 (Reply router is Egress for FEC) with return Subcode set to
> >     0 and DS/DDMAPs only if the Proxy initiator requested information to
> >     be returned in a MPLS proxy ping reply."
> >
> > Do you mean that the DS/DDMAP TLV is included only if the initiator
> > asked for it (which seems like redundant advice) or do you mean that the
> > reply is sent only if the initiator asked for the DS/DDMAP information?
> >
> > 3. Same paragraph, next sentence: why SHOULD rather than MUST? What is
> > the exception?
> >
> > 4. Section 3.2.1, last paragraph (dealing with MP2MP case): the second
> > to fourth sentences read:
> >
> > "LSP pings sent from a leaf of a MP2MP has
> >     different behavior in this case. MPLS Echo Request are sent to all
> >     upstream/downstream neighbors. The Proxy LSRs need to be consistent
> >     with this variation in behavior."
> > s/has/have/ to get that out of the way.
> >
> > Do you mean that the initiator is a leaf of the MP2MP? How does the
> > Proxy LSR know this? Does it matter? If it is the Proxy LSR that is the
> > leaf, the statement makes more sense. The different behavior is that the
> > Proxy LSR always sends MPLS Echo Requests in at least one direction if
> > it is not sending an MPLS proxy ping reply. You could refer to the
> > previous paragraph for the remaining behavioural description.
> >
> > The next sentence in this paragraph has the same problem as Minor Issue
> > 2. above, except that I see a stronger hint that the second
> > interpretation suggested above is your intention.
> >
> > 5. You are creating a new IANA registry for sub-types of the Proxy Echo
> > Parameters TLV. You need to document registration procedures as per RFC
> > 5226.
> >
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> > General: Is there a reason for capitalizing "MPLS Echo Request" but not
> > "MPLS proxy ping request[reply]"?
> >
> > General: Sometimes return code text is enclosed in quotes, sometimes in
> > parentheses. Choose one.
> >
> > 1. ABSTRACT third line: s/Routers/Router/
> >
> > 2. Section 2.1.1, first line: s/If/if/
> >
> > 3. Same section, second paragraph has both typos and editorial glitches.
> >
> > OLD
> >
> >     In the case the targeted proxy LSR does not understand LSP ping Echo
> >     Request at all, like any other LSR which do not understand the
> >     messages, they MUST be dropped and no messages is set back to the
> >     initiator.
> >
> > NEW
> >
> >     In the case where the targeted proxy LSR does not understand
> >     the LSP ping Echo Request at all, like any other LSR which does not
> >     understand the messages, it MUST drop them and MUST NOT(?) send any
> >     message back to the initiator. [Was the MUST NOT intended? -- PTT]
> >
> > 4. Section 3.1, last sentence: s/is//
> >
> > 5. Section 3.2, first paragraph, fourth line: s/set to/to/
> >
> > 6. Same section, fifth paragraph:
> >    s/Request messages/Request message/
> >    s/one is sent/either is sent/
> >
> > 7. Same section, sixth paragraph, end of second-last line: s/an//
> >
> > 8. Same section, seventh paragraph: invocation is something that happens
> > after configuration. Maybe you want to say:
> >
> >    "If a configured filter has been invoked and an address ..."
> >
> > 10. Same section, later paragraph as shown below (editorial suggestion):
> >
> > OLD
> >
> >     If the "Request for FEC Neighbor Address info" flag is set, a
> >     Upstream Neighbor Address TLV and/or Downstream Neighbor Address
> >     TLV(s) is/are formatted for inclusion in the MPLS proxy ping reply.
> >     If the Upstream or Downstream address is unknown they are not
> >     included in the Proxy Reply.
> >
> > NEW
> >
> >     If the "Request for FEC Neighbor Address info" flag is set, the
> >     Upstream Neighbor Address and Downstream Neighbor Address
> >     TLVs are formatted for inclusion in the MPLS proxy ping reply.
> >     If the Upstream or Downstream address is unknown the corresponding
> >     TLV is omitted.
> >
> > 11. Same section, paragraph re detailed downstream mapping:
> >      s/LSR/Proxy LSR/
> >      s/inclusions/inclusion/
> > You use the abbreviation DS/DDMAP in the following section. Perhaps,
> > since you spell that out in this section, you might add "(DS/DDMAP)"
> > before "TLV".
> >
> > 12. Same section, next paragraph:
> >      s/vary/varies/
> > Capitalization is inconsistent: Proxy/proxy, egress/ Egress.
> >
> > The last sentence is referring to Section 3.2.1. Suggest either copying
> > that section's heading exactly or using the section number.
> >
> > 13. Section 3.2.1: inconsistent capitalization of "egress".
> >
> > 14. Section 3.2.2:
> >
> >      s'DSMAP/DDMAP'DS/DDMAP' (3 instances) or spell out if this is a
> >      new abbreviation.
> >
> >      In the first paragraph, mLDP is not a well-known abbreviation
> > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt>, hence
> > needs to be spelled out. ("Multipoint LDP", RFC 6826).
> >
> >      In the second paragraph, fourth from last line: s/egresses/egress/
> >
> > 15. Section 3.2.4.1 first paragraph, second sentence:
> >
> > OLD
> >
> >     If Next Hop sub-TLVs were
> >     included in the received Proxy Parameters TLV, the Next_Hop_List
> >     created from the address in those sub-TLVs as adjusted above.
> >
> > NEW
> >
> >     If Next Hop sub-TLVs were
> >     included in the received Proxy Echo Parameters TLV, the Next_Hop_List
> >     is created from the addresses in those sub-TLVs adjusted as
> >     described in Section 3.2.
> >
> > 16. Section 5.1, first paragraph:
> >      s/to either to/either to/
> >
> >      Why are "Composing" and "Sending" capitalized?
> >
> >      Seventh line down, end of line, add comma after "stack".
> >
> >      Next line: s/ie/i.e.,/
> >
> >      Next line: s/Proxy Reply/MPLS Proxy Ping Reply/
> >
> > 17. Section 5.1, Proxy Flags field description, 0x01, first paragraph:
> >       Fourth line: s/FEC types/FEC type/
> >       Fifth line: s/LSPs/LSP/.
> >       Following sentence:
> >
> > OLD
> >              The Proxy LSR MUST
> >              respond as applicable with a Upstream Neighbor Address TLV
> >              and Downstream Neighbor Address TLV(s) in the MPLS proxy
> >              ping reply message.
> >
> > NEW
> >              The Proxy LSR MUST
> >              respond as applicable with Upstream Neighbor Address
> >              and Downstream Neighbor Address TLV(s) in the MPLS proxy
> >              ping reply message.
> >
> > Following sentence: begin with "The".
> >
> > Last sentence:
> >
> > OLD
> >      for which the LSR learned bindings from.
> >
> > NEW
> >      from which the LSR learned bindings.
> >
> > 17. Section 5.1, Proxy Flags field description, 0x01, second paragraph:
> >      s/an Echo request/any MPLS Echo Request/
> >
> >      Second sentence:
> >
> > OLD
> >      Information learned with such proxy reply may be used by the proxy
> >      initiator to generate subsequent proxy requests.
> >
> > NEW
> >      The initiator may use information learned from the MPLS proxy
> >      ping reply that is sent instead to generate subsequent proxy
> >      requests.
> >
> > [Also applies to the last sentence of the 0x04 description)
> >
> > 18. Section 5.1, Sub-TLVs: "TLV-encoded list" means to my mind that
> > there is a TLV type and length preceding the first Sub-TLV. Maybe you
> > mean "List of TLV-encoded sub-TLVs"?
> >
> > 19. Section 5.1.1, "Next Hop Interface": why is the interface identifier
> > 16 octets long in the case of IPv6 numbered? Should there be text saying
> > that numbered interfaces are identified by the addresses assigned to
> > them, unnumbered interfaces by ??
> >
> > 20. Section 6, second paragrph: refers to "these points". What points?
> >
> > 21. IANA Considerations
> >
> > It would be helpful to indicate that the registries involved are found
> > under the heading "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
> > Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters".
> >