[mpls] Fwd: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp

[Lizhong Jin <[e-mail]>]

Forward to the list.

Lizhong

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Lizhong Jin" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sep 23, 2013 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Gregory Mirsky" <[e-mail]>, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <
[e-mail]>, "Xuxiaohu" <[e-mail]>, "
[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "VIGOUREUX,
MARTIN (MARTIN)" <[e-mail]>, "Loa Andersson" <
[e-mail]>

> Hi authors,
> I review draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-06, and think it is useful
and ready for WG adoption.
> Several comments are as follows:
> 1. Section 2. I think the option 1 and option 2 could not interoperate
with each other, and operators should ensure one same option is deployed in
one network. It is better to explicitly say that.
> 2. Is there any plan to keep one option, e.g, remove option 1 in future?
Option1 does not provide the same function of PIM-SM ASM, e.g, traffic
would be potentially lost before setting up P2MP LSP.
> 3. Section 4.2. It is not clear how to trigger the mLDP Label Map with
the Transit IPv4/IPv6 Source TLV. The procedures in RFC6826 only apply to
PIM-SSM, not PIM-SM ASM. Then I suggest to explicitly say: "When a router
(maybe DR on a LAN) initiates a transfer from the shared tree to a
source-specific shortest-path tree (SPT), it will issue an (S,G) Join. The
LSR may initiate a mLDP Label Map with the Transit IPv4/IPv6 Source TLV for
(S, G) when receiving this (S,G) Join." Or other description with similar
meaning.
> 4. If possible, it would be helpful for the readers to include one
example for option2 in the draft, like RFC6826 section2.
> Regards
> Lizhong
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Lizhong, Greg, Rajiv and Xiaohu,
>>
>> You have been selected as MPLS Review team reviewers for
>> draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-06.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Are you able to review this draft by Sep 25, 2013?
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Loa
>> (as MPLS WG chair)
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>
>