Re: [Mpls-review] MPLS-RT review of draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv

Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com> Tue, 26 June 2012 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lmartini@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15DB21F8559; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6pzkrMweEqxA; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from napoleon.monoski.com (napoleon.monoski.com [70.90.113.113]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1593C21F8551; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from confusion.monoski.com (confusion.monoski.com [209.245.27.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by napoleon.monoski.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5QHHA7o020332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:17:10 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FE9FC09.7070208@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:14:33 -0600
From: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
References: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C7120F21D3@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C7120F21D3@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:58:58 -0700
Cc: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Nischal Sheth <nsheth@juniper.net>, "mpls-review@ietf.org" <mpls-review@ietf.org>, "Sami Boutros \(sboutros\)" <sboutros@cisco.com>, "skraza@cisco.com" <skraza@cisco.com>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, Nic Leymann <N.Leymann@telekom.de>, "thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Subject: Re: [Mpls-review] MPLS-RT review of draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv
X-BeenThere: mpls-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS Review <mpls-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls-review>, <mailto:mpls-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-review>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-review>, <mailto:mpls-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:15:51 -0000

WG,

I read and reviewed the draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02.txt.

I have a few suggestions :
- The current editor should search and replace 3036 with 5036.

- In Section 4 I think we need to indicate that all future LDP 
applications MUST indicate the desired advertisement mode.
( instead of a RECOMMEND )


I am currently editing rfc4447bis, so I will include the suggested text 
in it.

The document is certainly useful and needed, but I find it a bit verbose 
to just say one simple thing: "the A-bit only applied to LDP 
applications defined in RFC5036"

I believe this document is ready to be adopted as a WG document , and 
progressed quickly , since it is very simple.


Luca




On 06/20/12 08:14, Ross Callon wrote:
> You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
> draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv.
> Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful
> (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is
> the document technically sound? We are interested in knowing whether the
> document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn’t have to
> be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).
> Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and 
> secretary,
> and CC’d to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may be sent
> privately to only the WG chairs.
> Are you able to review this draft by July 11, 2012 (this is giving you an
> extra week due to the July 4th holiday)?
> Thanks, Ross
> (as MPLS WG chair)