Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01

Russ Housley <> Tue, 17 February 2015 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132411A8908; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:04:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fJHfzlhkPcJX; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995FC1A8ADC; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC319A4020; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:04:31 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lYcgnVHec-8; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:04:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34A89A4022; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:04:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:03:53 -0500
Message-Id: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <>, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:04:51 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

This review is in response to a request for early Gen-ART review.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2015-02-12
IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-23
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary:  Ready

Major Concerns:  None

Minor Concerns:  None

Other Comments:  Just one

The structure of Section 2 seems odd to me.  I suggest this alternative:

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  Key Word Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.2.  Reverse Unidirectional LSPs Definition

   Two reverse unidirectional LSPs are setup in the opposite directions
   between a pair of source and destination nodes to form an associated
   bidirectional LSP.  A reverse unidirectional LSP originates on the
   same node where the forward unidirectional LSP terminates, and it
   terminates on the same node where the forward unidirectional LSP

2.3.  Message Formats

   This document uses the Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) to define
   message formats as defined in [RFC5511].