IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02.txt

Markus Jork <mjork@juniper.net> Thu, 21 March 2013 02:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mjork@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6087121F8233 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_RAND_6=2, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 377H69x17X3O for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F84C21F84C5 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUUpyviVUH3cEPkXlZtXOr8jBHP9DAX0I@postini.com; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:38:54 PDT
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:37:07 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:37:07 -0700
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (213.199.154.205) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:46:21 -0700
Received: from mail39-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.246) by AM1EHSOBE024.bigfish.com (10.3.207.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:37:05 +0000
Received: from mail39-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail39-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D7D2C02D1 for <mpls@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:37:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.241.149; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0511HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: 0
X-BigFish: PS0(zzzz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzzz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h)
Received: from mail39-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail39-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1363833422668939_26335; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:37:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.230]) by mail39-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BA3E00AA; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:37:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0511HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.241.149) by AM1EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (10.3.207.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:37:01 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0511MB435.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.10.157]) by BL2PRD0511HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.131.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0275.006; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:36:55 +0000
From: Markus Jork <mjork@juniper.net>
To: "draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOIdD7jbjHEbVpR0mDi8NXsE3K/ZivYW5A
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:36:55 +0000
Message-ID: <4DDE473A58262547A699C1E7C7AAF2742A4651AB@BL2PRD0511MB435.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5143A82D.8010204@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <5143A82D.8010204@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%TOOLS.IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:38:59 -0000

This is my MPLS review team review of draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02.txt.

1. Is the document coherent?

Yes, it discusses the topic in a question and answer format that is easy to understand. This is a useful format for triggering discussion and initially developing the set of proposed allocation and usage rules for the special purpose labels. However, if this document progresses further towards becoming a standards track RFC, a more conventional format would be more appropriate I think: an introduction chapter directly followed by the set of policies and rules.

2. Is it useful?

There is a good chance this document will never be needed at all. But we can't be sure because that means predicting the future. And because it is dealing with a currently very limited resource, it seems prudent to prevent future problems by defining an extension mechanism now.

3. Is it technically sound?

The document represents one reasonable approach of dealing with the issue of the very limited reserved label space. As the discussion on the mailing list has shown, everyone's crystal ball seems to be calibrated slightly differently and certain aspects could be handled one way or the other. But I am not aware of a clear alternative to the overall approach.
So I think this document is ready for working group adoption.

-Markus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email