Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt> (Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping) to Proposed Standard

Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> Sun, 27 September 2015 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1F71A9005; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rbMSFOv1bXDQ; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x243.google.com (mail-wi0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6DCE1A9004; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiku15 with SMTP id u15so10319088wik.1; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=v6Hs//D3xwYB8u4yj8N20QqyZ8QQBGoUZsszqmOb0U8=; b=op0wCtFKGIptHGZWd2burUd7eioknf76Lm797BjoQI0DFRZy7hRl7Qtz4x37S4lngr Hk19vxjYwnT1s/OWmN4IqUo1rF11q2yrlGa7eRelSrn3kVlIvEIHbNC2JnLo7zlX5pGD QURVRbvwe78Ea25yS4EqdpCkmqaTMpPszOTHhCTVwqlulbGB5KG6xphUo5ONTt9XXm/v XlsKzcKHcAP8HX9+Uv2TpXu02KopXPhk3aJr+5L/buCG7h3U+5dKGOMztD26JAmkFj9c Dk077zeuxTBwx4HobWju8uo7ePRdZCWbR/PYMJfr3Y6EsqJHjxa5+vzwNZDRFO8Q7t0p rtiQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.184.134 with SMTP id eu6mr11318413wic.77.1443316555192; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.236.164 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0u44mjZ+oTC+7x3r8uhWvBUbniFshw-1sVaM0FFBSAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA=duU0u44mjZ+oTC+7x3r8uhWvBUbniFshw-1sVaM0FFBSAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:15:55 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH==cJxBEHp18dkmKfvVCiohG1u=pj-FLPX2hTMckHF5btSL3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34ade9220370520b052b3
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/6fjJFL7OmjALBgtWZ5rHkrzD-8o>
Cc: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply.all@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt> (Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:15:59 -0000

Hi Andy,
Thanks for the review. See inline below.

Lizhong

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
> on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
> the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
> see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
> Reviewer: Andy Malis
> Review Date: 24 September 2015
> IETF LC End Date: 25 September 2015
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary:
>
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue
> and some nits that should be considered prior to publication.
>
> Comments:
>
> This review is based on the file
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt .
>
> This is probably one of the most reviewed drafts I have ever seen, going
> back to when it was an individual draft and then through its various stages
> in (and back to) the working group. Thanks to its many reviews and
> reviewers, the draft is technically correct and generally easy to follow.
> Thus, there is very little to add at this stage.
>
> Major Issues:
>
> No major issues found.
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> On Sept. 17, Joel Halpern wrote the Gen-art Review for this draft.
>
> I agree with his comment regarding the address stack, and his proposed
> sentence to be added to section 3.2.
>
[Lizhong] I proposed to add the following, and waiting for his confirmation.
This stack grows downward, with relay node addresses further along the
LSP appearing lower down in the stack. Please refer to section 4.2 for the
relay node discovery mechanism.


Nits:
>
> The abbreviation AN for Access Node is defined slightly after its first
> use, which is earlier in the same line in the document (line 197 in the
> .txt file).
>

> On lines 303 and 363, the word "octets" is misspelled.
>
[Lizhong] good catch. Thanks.


>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:06 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
>> (mpls) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping'
>>   <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt> as Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>    In some inter autonomous system (AS) and inter-area deployment
>>    scenarios for RFC 4379 "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and
>>    Traceroute", a replying Label Switching Router (LSR) may not have the
>>    available route to an initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to
>>    the initiator would be discarded resulting in false negatives or
>>    complete failure of operation of LSP Ping and Traceroute.  This
>>    document describes extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable the
>>    replying LSR to have the capability to relay the Echo Response by a
>>    set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator.  This document
>>    updates RFC 4379.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/ballot/
>>
>>
>> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
>>
>>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1945/
>>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/828/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>
>