Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr-extensions

Loa,

I’m repeating the comments in my MPLS-RT review of this draft, since they
were never responded to.

This draft documents the extensions required to LDP in order to signal
resilient MPLS ring LSPs, based on the architecture for RMRs described in
draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-02.

In general, I found the described extensions to LDP, and their operation,
clearly written to the extent that they can easily be the basis for WG
input and review. The authors have taken the draft to the point where wider
WG review that would result from adoption is necessary.

Thus, my opinion is that the draft is ready for WG adoption.

I have one nit that can be resolved either before or after adoption. In
section 4.2.2, the section begins:

   A node X wishing to participate in LDP RMR signaling SHOULD negotiate
   the RMR capability with all its neighbors.

I would think that should be a MUST rather than a SHOULD.

Cheers,
Andy

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> Working Group,
>
> This is to start a two week poll on adopting
> draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr-extensions-02
> as a MPLS working group document.
>
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org). Please give a technical
> motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
> the document should not be adopted as a working group document.
>
> There is one IPR disclosure against this document.
>
> The authors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that they are
> unaware of any other IPRs thanwhat has been disclosed to the IETF.
>
> The working group adoption poll ends July 27, 2018.
>
> /Loa
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>