Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT for draft-kompella-mpls-larp

Hi Xufeng,

Thanks for your review.  Please see inline for replies.

> On Dec 3, 2021, at 13:28, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Authors,
> I have reviewed the document and I think that the document is useful by addressing a gap for network operations. The approach is technically sound and easily implementable. The document is coherent. It is ready to be considered for WG adoption.
> Here are a few comments that can wait until the WG adoption.
> 1. The aging/timeout mechanism used by Ethernet ARP is not mentioned in this document. Is it intended to recommend implementing such a mechanism?
> 

Thanks for this reminder!  We will add more on this in a future revision.
> 2. It is understandable that the initial use case came from MPLS over Ethernet, but is this mechanism Ethernet dependent, or usable for other types of hardware (at least in theory)?
> 

This mechanism is general.  However, the details for MPLS over some other hardware type may be a little bit different (for example, depending on the media, the hardware address may contain media addresses in addition to labels).  So, for now, the focus is on MPLS over Ethernet.
> 3. Sec 3.3. says that “1. checks if it has reachability to H3.” Is this check for “IP reachablity”, or MPLS reachability with an available lable stack that can be used to reach H3?
> 

Fixed.
> 4. In Figure 3. of Sec 5.1., there is “ ... (3 octets)”. Should it be “2 octets” here? Also, if these 2 octets are not used, why 6 is chosen as the hardware address length?
> 

3 octets (clarified).
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
> 
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:19 AM Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com <mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Xufeng/Yingzhen/Rakesh,
> 
>  
> 
> You have been selected as potential MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10.
> 
>  
> 
> Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know that this review is going on.
> 
>  
> 
> 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 WG secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
> 
>  
> 
> If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what *really* need to be resolved before adopting it as a working group document, and what can wait until the document is a working group document and the working group has the revision control.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Can you review the document by November 26, 2021?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tarek (as MPLS WG chair)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls