Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT rreview of draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels

Greg Mirsky <> Mon, 02 October 2017 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398F4132941; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TpG2XIqa8RYH; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F42513447F; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c82so2315525lfc.6; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 06:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fvC6boUUIjnwHVHTNx3Jwmsf8BKUbx8vliMb7VqT3QI=; b=aA9IM/r5PwICaGpW8xvsTs0+HeDf5VdKPOWGh4UsZI0s6cMvjwqO6JvjOSgDrQuivY 4tBkxtIMhVlf63FtiQdFWqRHZ9tcLe2qkEPBZrCnCAZ5NQnO7KoYlhu6x++lRc2l6Asv J0BE33dRi3nPUug/GhCubYY2lPMNEko4OkupV7tuuTg9jUiGaZObc2zOS/IsqQkoB/Op 5gmWRxqtJGCcCuGYLF6ceqP7QCnX4THhWdLVAiB1v/cE/3lozD/DjeLKqT/r55f6O8OW FtxndC+J+uWaG+WdmACpxRogjrvzc/R6M50udDDoR1LxAj1RR8EWemPdLmejNgbGq/Bw vUkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fvC6boUUIjnwHVHTNx3Jwmsf8BKUbx8vliMb7VqT3QI=; b=jyDC8AwEJW8sdWyHu/fwPXho2ERhrs7x0/KzN1ky4NPnzVx9yNb80xE+Zk1RSWnp0i wPfCsW7esUl0kzjZ5YueTpVJIaZ56rN0W7MWAwSiNxOpy8XRi335pmVwPIuygt/yji9F 8svOlN473bC45YUu/UGFy4EPm/WmHXyhMKznaR3dtD8BhnoyqLFIjG/fW+xeEOk7F/jR 7vljKv33ut71/DFEYFbZ16g+Xd22fM7OeOEh2L6JJZzXSeeUMzcoTl0obyR/nucKWzUX 6WmfPSS0rpuwYGskNH1cP3qQ576ECcK8cN7ckWbLMiQT/duqFNjvfgGziqxyX1Bs7V56 aa9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUS/AqoL5p9ZSKV2JqyMYXZqihXAtcWACRpUcX1mAImZ+eZI8/a pPrRGNNI0ZkEwbBeqvWnM6qYy3yUZUXj1XJQDx4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAw+MFvnj0K68XAZwUj77gGKPUEU3KkiNeYe8LsWzvCGnmxjEnQLPz+MW+Eg1HkLz2Y7uIVsVMSG0eatQl2QL4=
X-Received: by with SMTP id h35mr610344lfi.73.1506952757575; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 06:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 06:59:16 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Loa Andersson <>
Cc: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <>, Stewart Bryant <>, Yimin Shen <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113fbed2cf0676055a90c766"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT rreview of draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 13:59:22 -0000

And now with MPLS WG included.


On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Greg Mirsky <> wrote:

> Dear Authors, WG chairs,,
> below please find my review of draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02:
>    - the document is very well written and it was pleasure to read it;
>    - I believe that the proposed "pop and forward" functionality is
>    useful;
>    - the proposed solution is technically sound.
> Hence my conclusion - the draft is ready for WG adoption.
> Taking this opportunity I'd like to share my comments but I don't consider
> any gating WG adoption:
>    - Introduction refers to labels with pop and forward functionality as
>    transit labels. Later in the draft, as I understand, such labels referred
>    to as 'pop labels'. Please consider establishing that these terms are used
>    interchangeably or using only 'pop label' term;
>    - I think that in all examples it is assumed that the egress LER
>    advertises implicit NULL label. There's no need to change examples but it
>    may be helpful to clarify use of the implicit NULL label by the egress LER;
>    - the draft introduces Effective Transport Label-Stack Depth (ETLD)
>    parameter. On the other hand, in Sectio 4 of Entropy Label for SPRING
>    Tunnels
>    <> introduced
>    Entropy Readable Label Depth/Readable Label Depth. Could it be that these
>    are the same? That only one parameter is sufficient?
>    - section 8.1 I think it will be helpful to provide information on
>    what the label stack looks when a packet arrives at node F;
>    - extensions proposed in section Protocol Extensions will be easier to
>    understand and evaluate if these refer to figures.
> Regards,
> Greg
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Loa Andersson <> wrote:
>> Greg, Rajiv, Stewart, Yimin
>> You have been selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for
>> draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02.
>> 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). Please remember that it often is
>> easier to progress the document when it has become a working group
>> document. All comments in the MPLS-RT review needs to be addressed,
>> but please think carefully about whether a comment is gating the
>> adoption or could just as easily be addressed after the adoption.
>> 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
>> needs to be resolved before adopting it as a working group document, and
>> what can wait until the document is a working group document and the
>> working group has the revision control.
>> Are you able to review this draft by August 29, 2017? Please respond
>> whether you are available to do the review in a timely fashion.
>> Thanks, Loa
>> (as MPLS WG co-chair)
>> --
>> Loa Andersson                        email:
>> Senior MPLS Expert                
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64