From nobody Fri Dec 3 13:28:29 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8FE3A09C7; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 13:28:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0aecsTobRv7F; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 13:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E91B3A09C4; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 13:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id o20so16719421eds.10; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:28:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ywuSzu4AwWgkVSGpQD9vGL7uI9k2lv26fFJe+xzpVJM=; b=O8TPfCpM69/8qCUkK7x+XSMwOaa0Dpl8Gszt7Unup/qnrbREdw3BpMpKK+ODJGcdUH olojSd9Oi48rRx0pXDNC/U7RSGB4sM6e8np4wWwq8xUkEsVgRmorR34iSjYT13VKp0gk sIi8tK0UtfNqPgbrZAG5rsmNeD0Z46lPjFaxFZ7lnPi1ZtM1XMz/SfE2ZavXBLK0BrI6 5vlJUOV43msANxkR04Wwbwlc319zHuz/lx3vP27tmW/YSq8LaC9Sm6F75CmT4yXCPlAJ yWBaHLy8dq8EPd6wi44s6xnuq9hHhvWtjAMMfMEqOkH9CxT3orIOPW62+dwH/yRYtixs Xmcg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ywuSzu4AwWgkVSGpQD9vGL7uI9k2lv26fFJe+xzpVJM=; b=eNbjZ/birbUUxVDIls6iEy4SqRLkkriU9oH8CMm8yASjD5s+Lsi9rUaErYmyR3b+lo 403vZNG4pfNG301paVT7lk46xMNG3Ivt+U/ry41Cswd5IQxDxbQtI6J1kK8dU0ki4bdV qorke6KNLVUcqgg3RFi1+pg8Bsf4P824FstIw0oDxSB3GrassMtUIMmldg33gpf5DDZR IMjmFsa3eqaP396go1ketI7JbtcsmhxQgYIdSOgv0R1zOWrPsmFkA71uw1M/w4KuBE7m 2V/aWtojC3PfRYBXYRGwGaG8R/AL1+pxd+1IAopDBkF4WRO49zEnsBT/FT3+Slv2R3kz f2hg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nIaSRlO4MngXgxuN4O3XeZVK2EammpxmPrn7lByIt6U2WRokL qh8vU5KE/3uj0CalSuiMhkEizTR1YphS6gUnu71DdZohjCw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw4oMdeidX9Dp+nAy4iSTuwN3tQ1Cp+zgrycXxRg67Mh1GJRm7Rjb6ejlIWgv/tSSv03oqTrKbigOJA4XVsorI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c15:: with SMTP id nc21mr26083786ejc.260.1638566901245; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:28:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Xufeng Liu Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 16:28:10 -0500 Message-ID: To: Tarek Saad Cc: "yingzhen.qu@huawei.com" , "rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com" , "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-kompella-mpls-larp@ietf.org" , mpls@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000016e93605d2449674" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT for draft-kompella-mpls-larp X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 21:28:28 -0000 --00000000000016e93605d2449674 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Authors, I have reviewed the document and I think that the document is useful by addressing a gap for network operations. The approach is technically sound and easily implementable. The document is coherent. It is ready to be considered for WG adoption. Here are a few comments that can wait until the WG adoption. 1. The aging/timeout mechanism used by Ethernet ARP is not mentioned in this document. Is it intended to recommend implementing such a mechanism? 2. It is understandable that the initial use case came from MPLS over Ethernet, but is this mechanism Ethernet dependent, or usable for other types of hardware (at least in theory)? 3. Sec 3.3. says that =E2=80=9C1. checks if it has reachability to H3.=E2= =80=9D Is this check for =E2=80=9CIP reachablity=E2=80=9D, or MPLS reachability with an av= ailable lable stack that can be used to reach H3? 4. In Figure 3. of Sec 5.1., there is =E2=80=9C ... (3 octets)=E2=80=9D. Sh= ould it be =E2=80=9C2 octets=E2=80=9D here? Also, if these 2 octets are not used, why 6 is chosen= as the hardware address length? Thanks, - Xufeng On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:19 AM Tarek Saad 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 t= o > 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 documen= t > and the working group has the revision control. > > > > > > Can you review the document by November 26, 2021? > > > > Regards, > > Tarek (as MPLS WG chair) > --00000000000016e93605d2449674 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=09 =09

Hi Authors,

I have reviewed the document and I think that the document is useful by addressing a gap for network operations. The approach is technically sound and easily implementable. The document is coherent. It is ready to be considered for WG adoption.

Here are a few comments that can wait until the WG adoption.

1. The aging/timeout mechanism used by Ethernet ARP is not mentioned in this document. Is it intended to recommend implementing such a mechanism?

2. It is understandable that the initial use case came from MPLS over Ethernet, but is this mechanism Ethernet dependent, or usable for other types of hardware (at least in theory)?

3. Sec 3.3. says that =E2=80=9C1. checks if it has reachability to H3.=E2=80= =9D Is this check for =E2=80=9CIP reachablity=E2=80=9D, or MPLS reachability with = an available lable=C2=A0stack that can be used to reach H3?

4. In Figure 3. of Sec 5.1., there is =E2=80=9C ... (3 octets)=E2=80=9D. Shou= ld it be =E2=80=9C2 octets=E2=80=9D here? Also, if these 2 octets are not used, w= hy 6 is chosen as the hardware address length?

Thanks,

- Xufeng


On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:19 AM Tarek Saad &= lt;tsaad.net@gmail.com> wrote= :

Hi Xufeng/Yingzhen/Ra= kesh,

=C2=A0<= /span>

You have been selecte= d as potential MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10.=

=C2=A0<= /span>

Note to authors: You = have been CC'd on this email so that you can know that this review is g= oing on.

=C2=A0<= /span>

Reviews should commen= t 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?=C2=A0 We are interested in knowing whether the document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doe= sn't have to be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).<= /u>

=C2=A0<= /span>

Reviews should be sen= t to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG secretary, and CC'd to t= he MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may be sent privately to only= the WG chairs.

=C2=A0<= /span>

If you have technical= comments you should try to be explicit about what *really* need to be reso= lved before adopting it as a working group document, and what can wait unti= l the document is a working group document and the working group has the revision control.

=C2=A0<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>

Can you review the do= cument by November 26, 2021?

=C2=A0<= /span>

Regards,

Tarek (as MPLS WG cha= ir)

--00000000000016e93605d2449674--