[Mpls-review] FW: MPLS Review of draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp

Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Fri, 01 June 2012 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rcallon@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4021011E8106 for <mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.02
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.578, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3R8fRFg9hM6r for <mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A3311E80B0 for <mpls-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8jTSDCC7BHq5mdQJsu7gwNRzTHKBIQF@postini.com; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:35:53 PDT
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net ( by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:32:53 -0700
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ( by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:32:52 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:32:11 -0400
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: "mpls-review@ietf.org" <mpls-review@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:32:07 -0400
Thread-Topic: MPLS Review of draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp
Thread-Index: Ac0tKxmNfdZz1FItSiOxQXQJYmxJPgLhabdgAdSdzXA=
Message-ID: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C70FE8EECE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C70FE8EECEEMBX01WFjnprn_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Mpls-review] FW: MPLS Review of draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp
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: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:35:55 -0000



From: Vero Zheng [mailto:vero.zheng@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:44 AM
To: Ross Callon; jeremy.whittaker@verizon.com; daniel@olddog.co.uk
Cc: George Swallow; Loa Andersson; martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com
Subject: RE: MPLS Review of draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp

Review of draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp:

This draft basically extent the mLDP over Target LDP Session. According to this draft, the Upstream LSR could either be a BGP next-hop or a RSVP-TE tunnel endpoint. No protocol extension needed.
I feel this is useful in operation networks, where not all the LDP neighbors are directly connected or the mLDP is partially deployed in the networks.

I think this draft is ready to be considered for WG adoption.


From: Ross Callon [mailto:rcallon@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:59 PM
To: jeremy.whittaker@verizon.com; daniel@olddog.co.uk; Vero Zheng
Cc: Ross Callon; George Swallow; Loa Andersson; martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com
Subject: MPLS Review of draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp

You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp.

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 May 23, 2012?

Thanks, Ross
(as MPLS WG chair)

PS: Note that this is a new experiment. We have not yet figured out whether reviewers should coordinate and send one combined review, or if they should each send their individual reviews.