Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Tue, 25 February 2020 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 7D8B33A09DB; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 03:22:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecitele.com header.b=MBUk4U46; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.com header.b=ZpUwlt+q
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 0-Abdh_wW-Ko; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 03:22:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta25.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta25.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 371993A09D7; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 03:22:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ecitele.com; s=eciselector10072019; t=1582629728; i=@ecitele.com; bh=cC5NPUkTKkdFtkjmP9l9ueDiXXzTqG5TkRyFcAvjc+E=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=MBUk4U46L4YbyhPK4wkJyMlInRvq7++pU25f9alJ1LjYK4c+dnMdfdwqrPqACGTJo oj/5psJIcUx4+cRzljvfJ51LfY8giP2p19SL0/Qmm/OTar9+NHw7MWcneOyIdXl1Df fPxsLbo90P2yQbkJpbleaiNGDvsKdkjwXET/ZcsU=
Received: from [100.112.195.167] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-2.bemta.az-a.eu-west-1.aws.symcld.net id B3/08-51549-063055E5; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:22:08 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1VTa0xTZxjmO5f2qHQ7nGJ51wiGEjJ2aUe3ZBQ SYWEhYSYzboBZiAMPtNAu7SlpSwTnEtyYsqEMhDggBRwXEbQoZYg6nchYQeLA4S6MXYANwmWj WIyg87Kd04PO/fm+53mf533fJyffoXBmRaKkDAUOg41jzSrJeoJZPOhWZ+JpGdGzn0Torrnku o7rQxLdeEsbqRv7/SL+CpFc3L9IJjc338GSf3z/e+l2PJ00cVnWgl2ksbT4U2me+wZW0Hktrg j1/ol9jNZTiG7BYXnfwhrxELB/2r1GuhAMDhyWCoSgXTh0+Eb8hKErMegua0IimULwz6UGXll HSegt4D7xq0TAwfQz8EPFDClgnM6H6cE5JGA5HQ8XD93CRU8C9N6c4HspHifC/ECYUCboSPB+ M+63y2gWvH3XSXHXJIIDSwf8M9fRGeBt6/TvQrQCVodOYuKuEBifbvBjoGlovjCCi3gjzP/xg BT9WTAx8xkS6+FQ/ZtTKuJQGG0oRUIeoCPg87m3xfLr8KXzuzXL83B74BIhWvKgp9wqlp+GYl 89KeJNULa/XiJEBrqSgI6qMn8vQ2fDoPMmIZrCoP3QFFGOomsfSy1iDpw/+/xYRgfBlZppopZ fh/Nf9NT5F0RLOFSVTklFHAUfOuukj9ePImk7ismymXKNDgtrMqu10dFqrfZFtTb2Jf7WsHvU rMaQr95tsDvUPN1t19gLLdlmvYYzONyIf2r6vMsbzqI515KmDz1FYaqNssiV1AzmiSyrvtDI2 o2Ztnyzwd6HNlGUCmQ1WFoGE2Qz5BoKckxm/sE+lIEKVAXLSEGW2fNYi92UK0pDKIkqn69rxC nvnSb+9LU38+eq/+yva2nEGYKzcgZliDibFpqN+dyj0Q9/h1EUqpTLUEBAABOYZ7BZTI7/6ws ohEIquQyEKYEmzvEowQIfDuPDnbiXIoRzsP9JyiJM3lZ8+vC+FMvqy1E9Z5f/uvHmmCt46zuz t5viX5MsfNDaotvsvPKRpLJxoMc89Qt2t+jvJCt3fE/tezPuUWLx6ITx28sVLfMj2RGWmv5JJ TZNhvZd3Ram0B677ztu6X0wrEnvXp4Mv7vhyeGkxOw3ZjqHElpjG94K/2n1dHoQdEuqEwu/Th 1YCcdKu5bjZqJih13z9ef1CkpxdafCY8KZnYptFanKmP64nGLvF56lks3VzIVdz5XkDDNVE6x Op172kNbAM5GTqtZzYwkH790K1TeMLHWl5LyatndL+1d7sVq77d3MHdu7R0JPUkfOxW+9H28p wcdOHRm3ZIbFzHok3BkVYTey2mdxm539FzTroV2JBAAA
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-34.tower-265.messagelabs.com!1582629724!134387!1
X-Originating-IP: [18.237.140.178]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: mailfrom-relay-check=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.50.1; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 30516 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2020 11:22:06 -0000
Received: from p01c.mail.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO mail.ds.dlp.protect.symantec.com) (18.237.140.178) by server-34.tower-265.messagelabs.com with ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP; 25 Feb 2020 11:22:06 -0000
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=m6EjW4JK8xPAJ2ubZGp0F+55EVQZCT8HeVkEHCqtjLXCPyZx/mBTPjLU/mn1YV4dL4AtEAaZIJ4hANSrMbNKeY9b/OCjLESa+x2GZDr6+375INftSnSaWlUDkFsqRJ6DsQ+uDV0ghOQ3LHkCfW3R20mq7ZRcWVcPQqIME/GVaIJ5PNNLR5iHdjA+MPil3Axbr79BrXrD85jd+isMexzsue7Zu2ksmPJNyS6a4Lb/VYrbnXKAhwck1lHBnCzytx5CeYvSM6YiC6t59nHwGV7XLjuk6XNWNtqdPtvlZ/cx9nd/1FLhSKp2ture/CPrE10wUgZU0jpZsWnfLitMNVX5wQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IM8ot2Mc6ZWvZQHix+uercDRbmaam6j8V2xaSgcHusc=; b=csVxBP2rxO81tRxxgnmSFJU65NY+FMEGjcoE3hss5j2HBADsqv+gMrGn/ssrOEJEv32+NLlh8K6c+9DS9E+Wq99gpeBf+DTkK8aoPIw5vCP8UJ7TXxykLumxaEaqA45C6PZEB2NTFlHbQ4Ys8+lw25Xt4DgyXtkl7dUdUK3nykp4KnjF3Zqfg59nnCfJbH7RBCZs+ZhQFIJANlTIL3xVJkzF1gvJadt9MkIQUZ+6QAqBngBbECHBaR8o7xEClWizWRlj3Nq7QoxB8/RH/DmOz0jRm1uDdHQhydYwXC3eTU0/AMjkGuWkOGm4EyP0IoiXqN53GuRxKrkAQBA8Sjf1Ng==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ecitele.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ecitele.com; dkim=pass header.d=ecitele.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-ECI365-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IM8ot2Mc6ZWvZQHix+uercDRbmaam6j8V2xaSgcHusc=; b=ZpUwlt+q9PWOl2Iyp9zZszOCkWiCZFJYFmfDN2Wb/ODuswja/i1cslGRqw8cTXu0ElWQc9+hrThzJvZiKEbjcZmaxrB+/o/Y3+9VMRiZYNy7yjaOA1Z+TU8J0MGesSn7o0uh6sTWl6eQZtAa0ao+pdHc6LEa2ymvKERLSWlTcBU=
Received: from AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (52.133.33.12) by AM0PR0302MB3396.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (52.133.37.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2750.21; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:22:02 +0000
Received: from AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::aca8:db6e:97b:c780]) by AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::aca8:db6e:97b:c780%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2750.021; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:22:02 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
CC: "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MPLS-RT review of draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam
Thread-Index: AQHV4vKeSXSSwlbbs0eaHMYCIGuh5agg17LggAnJDICAAS0goA==
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:22:02 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR0302MB3217ABFCD39B8EF7D884FC8A9DED0@AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <2141e262-752f-0c7e-fdcb-03aea45e9aa1@pi.nu> <AM0PR0302MB32176103B4B465D86CF7C8C49D110@AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB39430B4382AE04298C1BF806D5EC0@BYAPR05MB3943.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB39430B4382AE04298C1BF806D5EC0@BYAPR05MB3943.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e0be1a80-909c-4a7f-927e-08d7b9e4efca
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR0302MB3396:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR0302MB3396D76CBAD8BAB642FC21D69DED0@AM0PR0302MB3396.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0324C2C0E2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(136003)(376002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(189003)(199004)(66476007)(54906003)(26005)(66946007)(33656002)(6916009)(66446008)(55016002)(52536014)(8936002)(76116006)(64756008)(7696005)(86362001)(9686003)(66556008)(8676002)(186003)(4326008)(2906002)(5660300002)(53546011)(316002)(478600001)(71200400001)(81166006)(6506007)(81156014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR0302MB3396; H:AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: MD3nSkFLLIcbChrHlmE81gOQuybby5WzGQ3v0oHdBkzozNgqwNn3dF5UHsnMaDnL+9IqseQ38W9dYrHrG7C6y71YH1ivkfEC2tHenXQr+f+ba902zTb3L663XS1P6SXLfm9s70NHeZfNwbSAP5dOFw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM0PR0302MB3217ABFCD39B8EF7D884FC8A9DED0AM0PR0302MB3217_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e0be1a80-909c-4a7f-927e-08d7b9e4efca
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Feb 2020 11:22:02.1807 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: TA0xzcgEkoZz+6OQ7+KYlatBYzBatvjDbcB0MC2rs5EAAT02AMAtQLlr1RY/RiGblTDQ22erUpx8qKgTnoYlWw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR0302MB3396
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-DetectorID-Processed: d8d3a2b3-1594-4c39-92fb-b8312fe65a8a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/6ToKXk8UwkvYoEk2FAnJ1PJmlfs>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:22:19 -0000

Shraddha,
Lots of thanks for a detailed response to my comments and a new version of the draft that addresses most of them.

Please see also some responses inline below. Hopefully they will be useful.


Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com

From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 6:56 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org; Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>om>; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam

Hi Sasha,

Thanks for the review. Pls see inline for replies

Rgds
Shraddha

From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 5:34 PM
To: mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com<mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>>
Cc: draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam


Hello,

I have been selected as one of the  MPLS-RT reviewers of draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam.



This review presumably is part of the process of adoption of this draft as an MPLS WG document, and should answer the following questions:

  1.  Does this draft address a real problem?
  2.  Is the current version a reasonably good start for solving this problem?
  3.  Are there any issues that must be fixed prior to adoption of the draft as a WG document?



After reading the draft I think that the answers to questions (1) and (2) above are positive.



I have a couple of technical issues with the draft listed below.



  1.  All sub-TLVs defined in the draft include lists of pair of local and remote IPv4 or IPv6 addresses describing links between the advertising node and the eBGP neighbor for which the EPE SID is advertised.
     *   I wonder if link-local IPv6 addresses are acceptable in these lists

              <shraddha> draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe does not explicitly specify whether link local addresses are included.

From BGP protocol perspective I do not see any problem with including link local addresses. I have updated this draft to include link-local ipv6 addresses.

[[Sasha]] What the updated draft says is that link-local IPv6 addresses are allowed. But these addresses do not identify the interfaces on which they appear, so I doubt such a clarification is enough.  I think that if link-local IPv6 addresses are used, it should be possible to include some form of identifying the underlying interfaces following RFC 4007. Alternatively, you can say that link-local addresses are left FFS.



     *   I also wonder how unnumbered P2P IPv4 interfaces could be specified in these lists.

             <Shraddha> unnumbered p2p interfaces are out of scope. I have updated the document with this information[[Sasha]] OK with me.



  1.  All sub-TLVs defined in the draft include, as one of their files the field “Local AS” that is always defined as ”4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the Confederation”. I wonder if this definition equally applies to the case when the so-called “Local AS” mechanism defined in RFC 7705<https://clicktime.symantec.com/3KS3q9GHjbBnYp1G2Rk8Z3w6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc7705__%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21VXfhq4-7vne-Eba0WNolAQzJH-fEDF07GOqv-Q6SasdjBzZEdG6DQXAcVwjnSv1I%24> is used vs. a specific eBGP peer. In these scenarios the number of the AS to which the node that advertises an EPE SID differs from the AS number that this node uses in its OPEN message to the specific neighbor.

           <Shraddha> This is a good point draft draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe does not talk about RFC 7705 and does not include MUST statements to indicate what should be sent if migration with RFC 7705 is in force. Although I personally think that it should be possible to support OAM when RFC 7705 is in force by including the AS numbers from “local AS”, it should be specified clearly in draft

draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe and this document should just inherit from draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe. It may be too late to update draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe as its already in RFC editor queue. For now I have updated OAM draft and mentioned that if RFC 7705 is in force and if global AS number is sent, remote node may fail the validation [[Sasha]] OK with me.

Looking for feedback if there is a better way to handle this.





  1.  The document states in Section 1 that “Other procedures for mpls ping and traceroute as defined in [RFC8287<https://clicktime.symantec.com/365NBZRjaAtFck4LPHPDaZb6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8287__%3B%21%21NEt6yMaO-gk%21VXfhq4-7vne-Eba0WNolAQzJH-fEDF07GOqv-Q6SasdjBzZEdG6DQXAcVx_5oIeQ%24>] are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well”.
     *   Such a blank statement requires some clarification IMHO

<shraddha> referred section 7 of RFC 8287

     *   Specifically, RFC 8287 states in Section that the Traceroute initiator, upon receiving an MPLS Echo Reply message that includes the FEC Stack Change TLV with one or more of the original segments being popped “MAY remove a corresponding FEC(s) from the Target FEC          Stack TLV in the next (TTL+1) traceroute request”. I wonder if, in the case of EPE SIDs, MAY requirement should not be upgraded to SHOULD or even MUST for security reasons

<shraddha> This is up for discussion.If the FEC stack is not removed, it exposes the details of the previous AS and hence the security risk.

This usecase is applicable when the involved ASes belong to same operator so keeping MAY  might be ok. I am looking for input from WG.

[[Sasha]] Waiting for the WG input is, of course, OK with me. However:

-           We seem to agree that this may be a security risk, but I have not found anything in the Security Considerations section about this risk

-          FWIW, I prefer to be prepared and not to wait for DISCUSS be raised by the Security ADs:-). Adding some text that describes this risk and the way to mitigate it could help to avoid this IMHO.



Neither of the issues mentioned above looks to be as blocking WG adoption of the draft. They can safely be resolved after adoption.



Hopefully this review will be useful.



Regards,

Sasha



Office: +972-39266302

Cell:      +972-549266302

Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 6:53 AM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <matthew.bocci@nokia.com<mailto:matthew.bocci@nokia.com>>; Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>>; Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>>; Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com<mailto:Italo.Busi@huawei.com>>
Cc: draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam@ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam



Mathew, Sam, Sasha and Italo,



You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam.



Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own document.



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.



Are you able to review this draft by Feb 28, 2020? Please respond in a timely fashion.





Thanks, Loa

(as MPLS WG chair)

--

--





Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>

Senior MPLS Expert

Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________