[mpls] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 18 October 2013 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7B121F8427; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VkYgHqalluoh; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF2021F9CB0; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443ED1BC96F1; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [192.165.183.201]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33DB11BC96D5; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5260FFC8.7090602@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:30:48 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
References: <526056C6.7060007@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <526056C6.7060007@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, gen-art@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:31:04 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt
     LDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 18-October-2013
IETF LC End Date: 6-November-2013
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard RFC.  I believe there is one major issue that is easily addressed.

Major issues:
     I may have simply missed this reviewing the document, but as far as 
I can tell there is no specification of the relationship between the 
MT-IDs in this document and the MT-IDs used elsewhere.  Yes, I can take 
a guess at the intent.  But is it stated somewhere that these are the 
same IDs negotiated in the relevant IGP?  Or is there some other intent?

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
     I find it odd that the MT-ID follows the IP prefix in the various 
formats.  Yes, the computer can parse both.  But since we tend to think 
in Network byte order, I expect more significant information (MT-ID) to 
occur before less significant information (IP prefix within topology.)