Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-08.txt

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Huub van Helvoort" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:49 PM

Hello Tom,

Sorry for that.

I have uploaded draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-09 to fix
these issues after double checking and unscrewing.

<tp>
Huub

Thanks for that - definitely not so kinky.

My big comment is that I would like all the entries in section 3 in
alphabetic order.  Technically, it makes no difference but to the user,
I think it would be a big improvement.  At the moment, it is like
turning to an English dictionary that is divided into sections and
needing to know whether a word derives from Greek or Arabic, Sanskrit or
Chinese, in order to know which section it is in.  The fact that the
first half is in alphabetic order just makes it harder to use - if the
ordering were seemingly random, it would be less of a problem!

Lesser comments.

PST and SPME have made it into significant MPLS-TP RFC and will be there
for ever.  I would like (deprecated) entries for these in this.

3.12 CE is not expanded anywhere

3.16 spurious period after the reference

3.43 an MEG???

3.43 et seq.  The various ME entries lack any references; since ME seems
to me to have been the most troublesome aspect of MPLS-TP and one that
still leads to errors, such as the erroneous expansion of MEP, I think
that these entries above all need references.

3.45  This is a comprehensive entry and yet ...  TCM is not expanded
anywhere - I think it deserves an entry of its own.  Statements like
"A MEP terminates all the OAM packets that it receives"
makes me think 'from where?' do I really understand this?
while
"MPLS-TP MEP notifies a fault indication"
seems odd in highlighting just one aspect of a MEP's functionality;
again, why that?

5 Operations and Management (OAM)
I love it - could we push for this usage to be adopted across the
IETF:-)

I would like a reference for this section - there are a number of OAM
RFC to choose from, e.g. framework, analysis, requirements.

6 I would like a reference for this section, perhaps the just-WGLC'd
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework

9 I do like alphabetic order, for references as well (a comment I saw
recently from a GenArt reviewer).

Overall, it remains an impressive piece of work.

Tom Petch


Regards, Huub.

========================
> Um; I am still seeing
>
>     [RFC....].
>
>     <<TBA>>
>
> Error! Reference source not found., Error!
>     Reference source not found., and Error! Reference source not
found..
>     ITU-T Recommendation Error! Reference source not found
>
> which suggests to me that a little more unscrewing is in order.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Huub van Helvoort" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-08.txt
>
>
>> Sorry,
>>
>> I had to re-spin. MS messed up the references.
>>
>> Regards, Huub.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>>>    This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching
> Working Group of the IETF.
>>>
>>> Title           : A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in
> Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) drafts/RFCs
> and ITU-T's Transport Network Recommendations.
>>> Author(s)       : Huub van Helvoort
>>>                             Loa Andersson
>>>                             Nurit Sprecher
>>> Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-08.txt
>>> Pages           : 18
>>> Date            : 2013-01-15
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>      MPLS-TP is based on a profile of the MPLS and PW procedures as
>>>      specified in the MPLS-TE and (MS-)PW architectures developed by
> the
>>>      IETF.  The ITU-T has specified a Transport Network
architecture.
>>>
>>>      This document provides a thesaurus for the interpretation of
> MPLS-TP
>>>      terminology within the context of the ITU-T Transport Network
>>>      recommendations.
>>>
>>>      It is important to note that MPLS-TP is applicable in a wider
> set of
>>>      contexts than just Transport Networks.  The definitions
> presented in
>>>      this document do not provide exclusive nor complete
> interpretations
>>>      of MPLS-TP concepts.  This document simply allows the MPLS-TP
> terms
>>>      to be applied within the Transport Network context.
>>>
>
>


--
*****************************************************************
               请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样