Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam

[[e-mail]]

Dear Authors, WG Chairs, et al.,


I've been asked to review the draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam. I've concentrated on three criteria:


clarity of the document



the technical value of the problem addressed


technical feasability of the proposed solution



Below are my notes on these three aspects:


The document is reasonably well-written and is readable.


I couldn't find a sufficient technical explanation for introducing a new mechanism for the inter-domain ping/traceroute in addition to the one described in RFC 7743.


It seems that the proposed mechanism has several issues:


Three types of SID sub-TLVs are defined, but only use of one is mentioned in the document.


I couldn't find an explanation of the relationship between IPv4/IPv6 Node Address and SID in Type 3 and Type 4 sub-TLVs, respectively


Also, in which scenario the SID field in Type 3 and Type 4 sub-TLVs is recommended?


And further, traceroute mode is called out of the scope of RFC 7743. I've read the explanation of traceroute in the draft, and I don't think it is a workable solution.


I don't feel that the draft is ready for WG adoption at this point.


I much appreciate your consideration of my comments and looking forward to discussing them with the authors.









Regards,


Greg Mirsky






Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division









E: [e-mail] 
www.zte.com.cn