Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT for draft-kompella-mpls-larp

[Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tarek, Authors,
As requested, I have done MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10.

Yes, the document is coherent and technically sound. It is well written and
is ready to be considered for WG adoption.
Below are some non-blocking review comments to be considered:

 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10#section-3>.
L-ARP Protocol Operation



Within the MPLS Fabric, the usual MPLS protocols (IGP,

   LDP, RSVP-TE) are run.



<RG> Does this include SR-MPLS as well?



3.2 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10#section-3.2>.
Egress Operation



o  a node SID advertised on behalf of H3; or



<RG> The draft should expand the acronym for SID.

Is this for Segment Routing? The draft does not discuss SR applicability
elsewhere (e.g. Section 3).  Also there is no reference to any SR documents.



3.4 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10#section-3.4>.
Data Plane



If T1's reachability to H3 is via a

   SPRING label stack, the label L1 acts as an implicit binding SID.



<RG> Same Comment for binding SID and SPRING as above.


Section 5.2

The CT TLV has Type (TBD)



Is this Type TBD to be allocated by IANA? If yes, Section 7 does not
mention it.

Also, should expand the acronym CT.


Section 7 IANA Section:


The document may add more information on the IANA registry type. I think it
is following:


https://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml

Hardware Types


Thanks,

Rakesh




On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:19 AM Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Xufeng/Yingzhen/Rakesh,
>>
>>
>>
>> You have been selected as potential MPLS-RT reviewers for
>> draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
>> that this review is going on.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you review the document by November 26, 2021?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tarek (as MPLS WG chair)
>>
>