Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 03/09/2012 13:26, Hejia wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I have finished reviewing draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05.txt as the member of MPLS Review team and have the following comments:
>
> * Is the document coherent?
>
>  It is close to coherent. Please take the following two comments into account when further progressing this draft.
>
>  1. There are a few drafts referenced in this document have expired, e.g.
>    [I-D.ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements]
This one Matthew can give the latest status on. It needs a major
re-write, but it does
need to be written. The best that we can do at the moment is to keep the
reference in as a placeholder.
>    [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]
This is now current
>    [I-D.raggarwa-pwe3-p2mp-pw-encaps].
Again Matthew can perhaps comment, but the PWE3 WG will need
to produce a document with equivalent text. My assumption is
that it will be phased behind the p2mp requirements draft.

For the moment this is the best placeholder we have.
>  
>    Please check the availability of the relevant content in these drafts referenced in this document. 
>
>  2. Section 4 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
>    There is an editor's note reminding the coordination work between this draft and [I-D.hmk-mpls-tp-p2mp-oam-framework]. It is better to work out the details before moving to WG adoption.  
I disagree. By adoption the WG is making the statement that it is
working on this work
and this is only a section of the work.
>
>
> * Is it useful (i.e., is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is the document technically sound?
>  
>  I believe this document is useful. One comment about Section 6: 
>  Section 6 summarizes the 1+1 protection scheme for unidirectional P2MP transport paths as defined in [RFC6372]. However, some description in this section (see below) is applicable to 1:1 instead of 1+1 P2MP protection. 
>  
>    "Fault notification
>    happens from the node idenifying the fault to the root node and from
>    the leaves to the root via an out of band path. "
I have noted that the referenced text (RFC6373 section 4.7.3) deals with
both
1+1 and 1:1
>
> * Is the document ready to be considered for WG adoption?
>  It is suggested to clear up the issues listed above before moving forward to WG adoption. 
>
>
> * Nits
>
>   1. Section 4 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
>    s/spacific/specific
done
>
>   2. Section 5.2 Point-to-Multipoint PW Control Plane
>   " [I-D.ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw]" at the beginning of this paragraph should be deleted.
done
>   3. Section 6 Survivability
>   s/eather/either
>   s/ identifying/identifying
done (can't find the second issue)

- Stewart
>
> B.R.
> Jia
>
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> 发送时间: 2012年8月18日 15:14
> 收件人: [e-mail]; Hejia; David Allan I
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Martin Vigoureux
> 主题: MPLS-RT Review of draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05
>
> Kenji, Jia, Dave;
>
> You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
> draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05.txt
>
> Note to authors: You have been CC’d on this email so that you can know
> that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
> document.
>
> 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 Sep 3, 2012?
>
> Thanks, Loa
> (as MPLS WG chair)


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html