Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Weiqiang,

Thanks for considering the comments, if there are any doubts about comments, I'm happy to clarify.

Best regards,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weiqiang Cheng [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:48 AM
> To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: 答复: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-
> 04.txt
> 
> Hi Mach,
> Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
> We authors will update the draft accordingly soon.
> 
> B.R.
> Weiqiang Cheng
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Mach Chen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2017年2月27日 18:05
> 收件人: '[e-mail]'
> 抄送: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
> [e-mail]
> 主题: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt
> 
> 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-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt
>  Reviewer: Mach Chen
>  Review Date: 2017/2/23
>  IETF LC End Date:
>  Intended Status: Standards Track
> 
> Summary:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
> 
> Comments:
> This document may need some paragraph restructuration or adjustment to
> make it more readable, for example , before jumping into the detail of some
> processes, it's better to give some introduction to the scenarios and relevant
> conditions, and the used terms need to be defined before being used.
> 
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> 1.
> The implicit fundamental pre-condition of the proposed MSRP is that, for
> each protected LSP, the egress and the  ingress LSR have to negotiate (or
> through NMS, or static configurations) the LSP label that will be pushed by
> the ingress. The label has to be a label that the egress must know how to
> handle it, otherwise, when the packet exits the ring tunnel, the packet will
> be mis-forwarded to non-intended node or dropped. This condition and
> probably the relevant mechanisms  should be explicitly pointed out and
> described in the document.
> 
> 2.
> Section 4.1
> The Figure of "the logical layers of the ring" shows the innermost service is
> PW, is this document only applies to PW or other applications will be included.
> If it's later, some modifications are needed, and you need to check the whole
> document to make the relevant descriptions and usages consistent.
> Figure 2 has the same problem.
> 
> 3.
> Section 4.1.3
> s/The clockwise working ring tunnel label RcW_D/ The clockwise working ring
> tunnel label of RcW_D And since RcW_D identifies a ring tunnel, not a label,
> and the author seems intend to use RcW_D(X) to identify a ring tunnel label,
> I'd suggest to add some clarification text to this notation.
> 
> 4.
> Section 4.4.1
> Suggest to move Figure 11 to under "Bullet  1.  Single-node interconnected
> rings."
> 
> 5.
> Section 4.4.4, the penultimate paragraph "...LSP1->R1cW_F&A(D)-
> >R1aP_F&A(D->C->B->A)->R2cW_I(A->F->G->H->I)->LSP1.", what's reason
> to add "R1cW_F&A(D)" into the switching path? Seems it's redundant.
> 
> 6.
> Section 4.4.3,
> In my understanding, the ring tunnels to virtual interconnected group are
> shared by all LSPs that needed to be forwarded to other rings, right? If so, it's
> better to add some text to explicitly state this.
> 
> 
> 7.
> Section 5.1
> "   When the failure has cleared and the Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer has
>    expired, the nodes sourcing RPS requests MUST drop their respective
>    switches (tail end) and MUST source an RPS request carrying the NR
>    code.  The node receiving from both directions such an RPS request
>    (head end) MUST drop its protection switches."
> 
> Above text introduces the "tail end" and "Head end" tems, but the
> document does not have detail definition and introduction to these terms.
> Suggest to give the definition of these term in the terminology and notation
> section.
> 
> 8.
> Section 5.1
> "A destination node is a node that is adjacent to a node that
>    identified a failed link."
> 
> Based on the above text, the "destination node" cannot be uniquely
> determined, since a node in a ring has two adjacent nodes. Some clarification
> or more accurate description is needed.
> 
> 9.
> Section 5.1.2
> s/sane ring/same ring
> 
> 10.
> Section 5.1.3.  Ring Node RPS States
> 
> Are those RPS states per node or per ring tunnel or per egress?  Whatever
> for either case, the document should state it explicitly.
> 
> And according to the explanation of each state, seems that the states are
> mutex each other. Considering the steering mode, seems that a node may
> be at both switching and pass-through state, right?
> 
> BTW, for those RPS codes, it's better to add a reference to the section
> (Section 5.2.1.1) to give a hint to the reader that there will be detailed
> explanation in the following sections.
> 
> 11.
> Section 5.1.3.2
> 
> "A node in the switching state MUST terminate RPS requests flow in
>    both directions."
> 
> If a node in the switching state terminates RPS requests, how does the
> steering switching mode work?
> 
> 12.
> Section 5.1.  RPS Protocol
> "The described RPS protocol uses the short-
>    wrapping mechanism described in section 4.3.2 as an example."
> Are there any differences when the RPS protocol used for wrapping and
> steering, if no, it should be stated clearly. Otherwise, it needs to specify the
> differences, or for each switching mode, define its procedures and state
> machine.
> 
> 13.
> Section 5.1.3.2.  Switching State,
> 
> The third paragraph describes the rules in case of unidirectional failure, but
> reader can not recognized this only when read the next paragraph. This
> section needs some restructure to make it more readable. BTW, since there
> are differences between unidirectional failure and bidirectional failure, there
> need some text to describe the rules and procedures for the bidirectional
> case IMHO
> 
> 14.
> Section 5.2.2.  Initial States
> a)
> It just lists a table and let the reader to guess the meaning, it's better to add
> some clarification text to help the reader understand the meaning and
> intention.
> 
> b)
> In addition:
> 
>            |  B  |  Pass-through               |  N/A           |
>             |     |   Working: no switch        |                |
>             |     |   Protection: pass through  |                |
> For pass-through state, why the working and protection tunnel states are
> different?
> 
> c)
> |  D  |  Idle - LW                  |  NR            |
> 
> What is the LW?  I guess it means "Lock of Working", but it needs to be
> expanded it when first use.
> 
> Best regards,
> Mach
> 
>