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

[Ross Callon <[e-mail]>]

FYI.

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel King [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:24 PM
To: 'Vero Zheng'; Ross Callon; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: 'George Swallow'; 'Loa Andersson'; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: MPLS Review of draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp

Hi All, 

Maybe we need to develop an agreed template for these reviews. In the
meantime here is a first pass:

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

1. Intended Status

The document is currently a "Proposed Standard". Considering the document is
in its fourth iteration and has been discussed, as part of a wider multicast
LDP debate, this status is fine as further discussion is required and some
modification to the proposal may be necessary. It may also be worth noting
that authors include a vendor and an operator. 

 2. Technical Proposal 

LDP can be used to set up multipoint paths (mLDP), however the base
specification assumes that LDP neighbors are generally directly connected.
Targeted LDP (T-LDP) provides a communication (tunnel) method between remote
LDP neighbors, i.e., neighbors that are not directly connected. However a
document did not previously exist that describe the procedure for using mLDP
between T-LDP neighbors. The document does not introduce new protocol
extensions or messaging. 

3. Document Quality

Generally the document is well written. A few general observations:

- You may need to check consistency of specification/conformance language,
(including "may" and "MAY").

- The document may benefit from a sub-section detailing the scope of the
document, this could be included as 1.x in to the introduction. 

- Section 1.3.1 gives some use cases. It may helped the reader if some ASCII
art was used to help with the narration. Especially as the text refers to
elements including D, R and U, which are presumably nodes.

- Consistency needs to be maintained with well-known acronyms. The authors
expand some well-known acronyms in the introduction (LDP and LSP) but not
RSVP-TE and SP, which appear later in the document.   

Overall the document is sound. 
	
4. Should the document be polled for WG adoption?

The document was first presented at IETF 81, no comments or questions were
recorded. Since IETF 81 WG list discussion on the draft has been minimal.
However, the document outlines use cases that may be encountered in
operational networks, therefore the proposal is sound and a WG poll should
be initiated. 

Br, Dan. 

From: Vero Zheng [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 23 May 2012 08:44
To: Ross Callon; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: George Swallow; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
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.

BR,
Vero

From: Ross Callon [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:59 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Vero Zheng
Cc: Ross Callon; George Swallow; Loa Andersson;
[e-mail]
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.