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 398F4132941; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: 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: 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 TpG2XIqa8RYH; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (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 7F42513447F; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c82so2315525lfc.6; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 06:59:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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 10.25.18.35 with SMTP id h35mr610344lfi.73.1506952757575; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 06:59:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.3.10 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:59:16 -0700 Message-ID: To: Loa Andersson Cc: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" , Stewart Bryant , Yimin Shen , "draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113fbed2cf0676055a90c766" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT rreview of draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org 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 --001a113fbed2cf0676055a90c766 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" And now with MPLS WG included. Regards, Greg On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Dear Authors, WG chairs, et.al, > 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: loa@mail01.huawei.com >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >> > > --001a113fbed2cf0676055a90c766 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And now with MPLS WG included.

Regards,=
Greg

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Greg Mirsky &= lt;gregimirsky@g= mail.com> wrote:
Dear Authors, WG chairs, et.al,
below please find my review of=C2=A0draft-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 a= re used interchangeably or using only 'pop label' term;
    • =
  • I think that in all examples it is ass= umed that the egress LER advertises implicit NULL label. There's no nee= d to change examples but it may be helpful to clarify use of the implicit N= ULL label by the egress LER;
  • the draft introduces=C2=A0Effective Transport Label-Stack Depth (E= TLD) parameter. On the other hand, in Sectio 4 of=C2=A0Entropy Label for SPRING Tunnels=C2=A0introduced Entropy Readable La= bel Depth/Readable Label Depth. Could it be that these are the same? That o= nly one parameter is sufficient?
  • section 8.1 I think it will be hel= pful to provide information on what the label stack looks when a packet arr= ives 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 <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
=
Greg, Rajiv, Stewart, Yimin

You have been selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-s= hared-labels-02.

Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know<= br> 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), an= d 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=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0phone: +46 739= 81 21 64


--001a113fbed2cf0676055a90c766--