RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt
"Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Fri, 28 September 2007 17:54 UTC
Return-path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbK32-0000xw-9R; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:54:44 -0400
Received: from gen-art by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbK31-0000xr-Ct for gen-art-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:54:43 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbK31-0000xj-31 for gen-art@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:54:43 -0400
Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbK2u-00005t-QP for gen-art@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:54:43 -0400
Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8SHsMSU029876; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:54:22 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:54:22 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:54:20 -0500
Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01ACF1C6@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01696137@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt
Thread-Index: AcfgJl/ynEL6DLbXR22So8kz5tFv7wh0ZbRA
References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01696137@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>, Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@nuovasystems.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2007 17:54:22.0265 (UTC) FILETIME=[99B98A90:01C801F8]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 926f893f9bbbfa169f045f85f0cdb955
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, gen-art@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
I have reviewed the changes incorporated in the -07 version and I believe that all of the issues I raised during the last call have been addrssed. At this time, I believe the current draft is ready to publish as a Proposed Standard RFC. Thanks, to the authors, for their prompt response in addressing these last call comments! -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [mailto:eric.gray@ericsson.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:56 PM > To: Adrian Farrel; JP Vasseur; Arthi Ayyangar > Cc: Ross Callon; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review > ofdraft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt > > Authors, > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: Inter domain Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and > Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions > (draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt) > > Reviewer: Eric Gray > > Review Date: August 16, 2007 > > IETF LC End Date: August 16, 2007 > > IESG Telechat date: (if known) Unknown. > > Summary: > ======= > > This document is not ready for publishing as a Proposed Standard. > Some points require clarifications. > > Comments: > ======== > > The following paragraph (section 2) seems inconsistent with the > text in subsequent sections: it seems that it is saying that any > combination of the three methods (contiguous, nested, stitched) > could be used in a _single_ LSP - yet at least on of these is > defined as "end-to-end" in subsequent text (contiguous). That > would seem to imply that any combination except contigous and > either of the other two. > > The paragraph reads: > > "In fact, as pointed out in [RFC4726], any combination of these three > options may be used in the course of an end-to-end inter-domain LSP." > > Yet the subsequent text describing "Contiguous" says "a single > end-to-end TE LSP ..." > > Possibly a careful read should be made to remove innappropriate > uses of the words "end-to-end" in connection with each method? > > For example, in the cited case above, simply removing "single > end-to-end" in the description of contiguous should remove the > ambiguity in that case. > > Alternatively, assuming that it is actually the case that - for > a contiguous LSP - the intent is that it be truly end-to-end, > then the original statement above needs to be modified. > > Finally, if it is fact the intent that the selection method is > supposed to apply to any given LSP - on an end-to-end basis - > then the quoted statement above should be removed entirely. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Still related to the above, but as a side note, the fact that it > is not immediately clear which of these is the intention in this > document is an indication of a potential for some very serious > interoperability issues. Some of the subsequent text mentions > the potential for a "policy failure" that SHOULD fail the setup. > > In addition to not being absolutely clear (when would it be okay > not to fail, is there a way to indicate that an alternative is > allowed, etc?), this implies that it is possible for a domain to > have a policy (for example, against contiguous LSP setup) that is > going to result in complete non-interoperation with a domain (or > implementation) asking for contiguous LSP setup. > > This sort of policy conflict may easily arise if one implementer, > or operator, interprets the specification one way and another (or > others) interprets it another in terms of expected "end to end" > behavior and combinations of the types of "spanning" LSPs. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The last two paragraphs in section 2 (preceding the heading for > section 2.1) are confusing and (potentially) contradictory: one > appears to say that signaling extensions (for control/selection > of methods) are in scope while specific details are not, but the > other seems to say otherwise. > > I suspect that the word "control" is where I am getting hung-up. > If it is intended that the specifics of each method are out of > scope in this document - once a method is selected - then it is > hard to see how "control [...] of the three signaling mechanisms" > is in scope but "specific protocol extensions required to signal > each LSP type" is not. > > Perhaps "control and" should be removed? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > In section 3, under bullet 4a - on page 6 - you use "SHOULD" in > saying whether or not a PathErr message is to be generated. Why > - or under what circumstances - would it be appropriate not to do > so? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Similarly, on page 7, you use the word SHOULD with respect to ERO > processing in a Path message. When (or under what circumstances) > would it make sense not to do as specified? What alternatives are > there? > > This same observation then applies to several (all?) of the actual > procedures - although several of them do provide some degree of > amplification as to when (or why) a specific step might not apply. > > Perhaps it would be best to clarify in the steps themselves and - > rather than say "SHOULD" in the introductory statement, it might > be enough to simply say that the following procedures apply (thus > avoiding the issue of using either SHOULD or MUST). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > After "However:" in section 3.2, I would suggest some form of > modification or qualification of the first bullet similar to: > > - A domain border node MUST NOT passively suppress propagation > of a PathErr message. > > Clearly, if the device applies a successful crankback approach, > it does not make sense for it to propagate the PathErr anyway. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > In the third bullet of section 7, page 15, "do not need to be > considered" does not follow from "are likely to be upgraded". > > True - if they are upgraded - then they are unlikely to need > to be considered in backward compatibility discussion. But > "likely to be" is NOT the same as "are". > > The point I think you are trying to make is that upgrading a > border LSR to include this capability is an essential enabling > requirement for useful operation of this capability - and that > makes it unnecessary to consider such upgraded border LSRs in > backward compatibility. > > ====================================================================== > NITs: > > In section 1.2, page 3, the definition for ASBR should start with > an expansion of the acronym. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > In section 3.1, as currently formatted, the "factors including:" > seems to be "Farrel, Ayyangar and Vasseur" - an artifact of the > way that your document only has a single empty text-line between > the last line of content-text and the page footer. This is only > a problem when reading the electronic version and - most likely - > a (humorous) temporary problem that will fall out in subsequent > versions. If not, it might be a good idea to force the line with > a colon ending it to not orphan the next line of content-text. > > In the version I read, this occurs at the bottom of page 6. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > On page 14, second paragraph, I suggest changing "ingress LSP" to > "LSP ingress". An LSP - however qualified - cannot "exert control". > -------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > First line in section 7, existing rather than esiting. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > Last line of the first bullet in section 7 (page 15, roughly mid > page) - inter-domain rather than inte-domain. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > Third line of third bullet (in section 7), controls verses conrols. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > Third line of second paragraph (in section 8, page 15), suitable > instead of suiable. > > > > > -- > Eric Gray > Principal Engineer > Ericsson > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-i… Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-cca… Adrian Farrel
- [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-cca… Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
- RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-ccam… Eric Gray