[mpls] TSVDIR Review for draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Fri, 10 December 2010 00:13 UTC
Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7F53A6BE7; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:13:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.48
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1eujsXdCHhuO; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB863A69BC; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,322,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="296959733"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2010 00:15:05 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8716.cisco.com [10.99.80.23]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBA0F47M011963; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:15:05 GMT
Message-Id: <201012100015.oBA0F47M011963@sj-core-1.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:15:04 -0600
To: wjaeger@att.com, jmullool@cisco.com, tscholl@nlayer.net, djsmith@cisco.com, mpls@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, tsv-dir@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] TSVDIR Review for draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:13:36 -0000
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC <mailto:tsv-dir@ietf.org>tsv-dir@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. Summary: This is a well written, concise and needed modification to MPLS. That said, I don't understand why the 1st minor issue below is present. Recommend (fairly strongly) adding the "Document Updates: RFC 3031, RFC 3032" as mentioned below on this first page of this RFC to be. Transport Issues: There are no issues minor issues: - S2 "Motivation", last sentence is "We believe that this document adds details that have not been fully addressed in [RFC3031] and [RFC3032] as well as complements [RFC3270], [RFC3443] and [RFC4950]. " I find it surprising that this document does not formally update 3031 and 3032, given that it is mandatory to implement, optional to invoke. ISTM, as an outsider to MPLS, this would in fact be the case given the impact of/to IP stacks not adhering to this proposed standard. - Section 5.2 is about Router Alert Options, and states "At the time of this writing ...". I wonder if this subsection is valid, or needs another review against this IntArea ID http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations-02 to still be valid in a month or two once the IntArea ID (currently in WGLC) is processed by the IESG and RFC-Editor? IMO - these two docs are progressing near enough to each other to each consider what the other says - with or without a normative or informative reference in either or both docs to the other. nits: - I'm surprised to see the Abstract on page 2. I thought we collectively fixed the case in which the Abstract can be on any page other than page 1. - at the page Footer, in the middle of the line, there isn't a "short document name" - which has been there on all previous well formed IDs and RFCs that I have seen (which of course is not all of them). It is recommended the authors pick a short form name for the subject of this doc for this location, such as LER Header Option Behaviors - S3, 4th para, second to last sentence is: "First a downstream LSR may have not have sufficient IP routing information to forward the packet resulting in packet loss. " recommend removing the first instance of "have". The sentence reads better without it. - S3, 4th para, last two sentences list a "First" and a "Second" reason correctly, but are missing required commas after each word (i.e., "First, ...", and "Second, ..." ) - S3, 5th para, 1st sentence is lacking commas here: "...FEC, yet are forwarded into an IP/MPLS network without being MPLS-encapsulated, present..." - S5.1, last bullet has this: "...MPLS encapsulation at a ingress LER ..." ^^^^^ s/a/an James
- [mpls] TSVDIR Review for draft-ietf-mpls-ip-optio… James M. Polk
- Re: [mpls] TSVDIR Review for draft-ietf-mpls-ip-o… David Smith (djsmith)