Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-06
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Thu, 05 April 2012 17:02 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C6D21F86DF; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.224
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iBffbiD5jm0U; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1AC21F8648; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=3344; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1333645348; x=1334854948; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rAPEzZXb4tzeoXKa08Qn+Y+j+LGaIYaHJqzFXK4VNcI=; b=VxDD1E0eCo13r6jFbdxfJvXz4s8YdbUzbaWIfON583iIrQzYqeBp39pj kXxQ7i1yxgfyjhnug/X0dIPKXy7n4AIMv3DgMdRoE8Hav6J6KZZXKb2t/ 5K/RUq1Ndzb0fx7WZj2bchxZG2e1yDOHBTykV27Rt4/ejXr37/alnI8cr I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAD7PfU+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABFhW+zAIEHggkBAQEEEgECDhVAARALFAQCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYNAQcBAR6HbAubA4M8EIk8kmeBL44TgRgElWuBEY06gQJngmg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,377,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="134423395"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2012 17:02:27 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q35H2RQg023880; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:02:27 GMT
Received: from dhcp-bdlk10-data-vlan300-64-103-107-147.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id q35H2PVe028809; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 18:02:25 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4F7DD021.4070807@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:02:25 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWefLUiSfxyEZpMck9moFeu7wHWk9-yAgHKDukLAt7EiQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWefLUiSfxyEZpMck9moFeu7wHWk9-yAgHKDukLAt7EiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:02:29 -0000
Authors Please can you answer or address these comments Thanks Stewart On 16/03/2012 03:06, Martin Thomson 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. > > Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-06 > Reviewer: Martin Thomson > Review Date: 2012-03-15 > IETF LC End Date: 2012-03-21 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: The draft has some minor issues. > > Major issues: none > > Minor issues: > > 3.2.2 states: "The mechanisms for achieving this selection are outside > the scope of this document." > > The example then describes the _conditions_ under which the selection > is made. So the statement doesn't quite make sense. It's reasonable > to presume that a standard doesn't prescribe the internal behaviour of > a PE where interoperability is no concern. Even though this is just > an example, it makes a very specific presumption about the behaviour > of the PE in reaction to an event. I can't imagine any other reaction > in this case, so I'm left wondering: what exactly is out of scope for > this? Communication of the event between PE1 and PE2? > > Section 4.1: "Non-revertive behavior MUST be supported, while > revertive behavior is OPTIONAL." > > The reason for this requirement is non-obvious (at least to me). Some > justification for it seems appropriate. > > Section 4.1: "Protection switchover can be triggered by the operator [...]" > > Again, justification would be nice. This actually smells more like a > product specification that requirement for interoperability. If the > requirement is, as I suspect, that switchovers triggered by manual > intervention can be marked as such in the protocol _so that they can > be treated with lower priority_, then that is definitely > understandable. > > Section 4.2: "[...] MUST support the configuration of revertive or > non-revertive protection switching modes." > > If revertive switching is optional, then this requirement makes not > sense for (T-)PEs that don't implement it. > > Nits: > The figures are somewhat difficult to read overall. It's unclear what > significance is attached to the dots in many of the diagrams, since > they aren't always consistent (see Figure 3). > Figure 5 is especially difficult to read. Another instance is the > choice of '.' or '|' in Figure 4, which could have some significance, > but probably doesn't because the usage is quite inconsistent. Having > labels for lines/tunnels impinge on boxes is difficult to interpret. > Reducing the noise in the diagrams would help. The text is adequate > to make up the shortfall. (Figure 7 is perfectly clear.) > > Labeling of PEs in 3.2.2 makes it hard to follow because PE2 is > attached to CE2. I'd suggest renames such that you have {CE1, PE1a, > PE1b} and likewise. > > The first requirement in 4.1 is missing a couple of spaces (after the > comma, in "besupported"). > > 4.2 has an empty bullet. > > Not expanded on first use: PSN, LDP > -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
- [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redund… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-re… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-re… Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-re… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-re… Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-re… Martin Thomson