Re: [mpls] AD review : working group last call draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-01

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeong-dong,

> In my opinion, all the wording from AD review should be taken except the
> followings that I would need further clarifications or confirmations from AD:
> ---
> Abstract and Introduction
> Due to the limitation in the length of Abstract and the nature of the abstract,
> which gives the main points of *this* document, I would like to see if we can
> add the sentence in the Introduction section only. 

Yes. Good point.

> Section 4.1
> The second paragraph in Section 4.1 is to emphasis the importance of the
> PSC communication channel in delivering the external switch command, 
> so that the failure of PSC communication channel has higher priority than FS. 
> I would like to propose to change the paragraph as follows:
> === OLD ===
> According to Section 2.4 of RFC 5654 [RFC5654] it MUST be possible to
> operate an MPLS-TP network without using a control plane.  This means 
> that external switch commands, e.g., FS, can be transferred to the
> remote Label Edge Router (LER) only by using the PSC communication
> channel and should not rely on the presence of a control plane.
> === NEW ===
> According to Section 2.4 of RFC 5654 [RFC5654] it MUST be possible to
> operate an MPLS-TP network without using a control plane. This means
> that the PSC communication channel is very important for the transfer
> of external switch commands (e.g., FS), and these commands should not
> rely on the presence of a control plane. In consequence, the failure
> of the PSC communication channel has higher priority than FS.

Yes. Thanks. I had completely missed this point.
Your new wording is helpful.

> Section 4.3
> You suggested “s/broken, the Freeze command,/broken. 
> The Freeze command,/”. 
> But, my reading of two separate sentences is not ok. The
> first sentence doesn’t seem to be complete. Would you 
> please check this again? 

You're right. My mistake.
Leave it as it is.

> Sections 9.1.1, Section 9.1.2, Section 9.1.3.2 and Section 9.1.3.3
> For those four comments on Section 9, I can understand the 
> concerns. In my opinion, the questions given in the AD review
> comments are very valid and should be answered. I think the
> text needs to be changed rather significantly. I will prepare a 
> new text proposal and further communicate with Adrian. 

OK. I'll look for that.

Many thanks for the quick turn around and the constructive approach.

Regards,
Adrian