Re: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10

Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> Sun, 27 September 2015 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068841A8F3C; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PS_O7O-tYo7m; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7494A1A8F39; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so63249689wic.0; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0YYP5+/24ouI+Zs14+A/LgbSo2iALYMzbf1nYWPMdJk=; b=HoxmYAjNCMjcqI1zxbJFCnGQUoXqQvpiKWmFb6WFH+rIE1hBVv1zwHpVYfIpFvMfrk qWmQxTSTCkoLnhQc/XMDuvYybIjHCVWumX2hmBMUXOCNWvxR8/xKnJKNxID7FGT/hyEI Qjk1YgwcBu2rrqekbX7mrJB3on2oqPs/DkgnI1ypg7LmUxd+brwZL1dFQQU3u5WX1fHA d/Oq1zbUWtvKzv53NwOiIp1C3VMo8Bs1gVbWkNUrQ67DnHzObDHKSUNv2yDUKY/pSBbt 0BjYErAf8r4OjBbQqcCwBdtj0PgHksTKJ1HxZQfrW/RtItrzj5qFXywNLLO2gzEUQe4i lEFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.104.137 with SMTP id ge9mr13569258wjb.57.1443315897065; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.236.164 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:04:57 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH==cJx9_U+7T2tGw3Zi99K+hBBYLnPztZK2UXnimBG2nKWwEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, mahoney@nostrum.com, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d838857e97e0520b02be2
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/-pPvQRKeBXlvFMi451u8vFGYBYs>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:05:01 -0000

Hi Joel,
Sorry for the late reply, I missed this email.
Thanks for the second round review. You are right, the stack will grows
downward, but only with the relay nodes, not all nodes along the LSP. The
mechanism is described in section 4.2 paragraph 4.
Do you agree if I add the following:
This stack grows downward, with relay node addresses further along the
LSP appearing lower down in the stack. Please refer to section 4.2 for the
relay node discovery mechanism.

Regards
Lizhong


>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:35:34 -0400
> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>om>, General Area Review Team
>         <gen-art@ietf.org>rg>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
> Subject: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review:
>         draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
> Message-ID: <55FB6A66.5050709@joelhalpern.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
>      Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 17-September-2015
> IETF LC End Date: 25-Sept-2015
> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
>
> Major issues: none
>
> Minor issues:
>      In this document, the address stack grows downward.  While
> reasonable, I think that in the absence of warning of this, readers are
> likely to be confused when they read the detailed procedures.  I think
> the document would be helped by adding the sentence:
>      "This stack grows downward, with addresses further along the LSP
> appearing lower down in the stack."
>     This could appear right after:
>      "-  Stack of Relayed Addresses: a list of relay node addresses."
> in section 3.2.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>