Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt
Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Sat, 25 March 2017 09:59 UTC
Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
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 31E12124281; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 02:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MM6uoIZcXLe6; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 02:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D740B120726; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 02:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DDL79189; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:59:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA418-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.36) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:59:01 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.102]) by SZXEMA418-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:58:58 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjcZujP4pQeKD5EC3MI1pw61Qg6GlbAVwgAAEPjA=
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:58:57 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28FDFC2DA@SZXEMA510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28FDCEF54@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com> <008501d2a545$8e3f3840$aabda8c0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <008501d2a545$8e3f3840$aabda8c0$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.194.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.58D63F67.006D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.102, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 750c85b75acbfbd84119d2f99f908fb6
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/HIQfJXHNE2VOpk9U9jS1ZHsmJGs>
Subject: Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:59:09 -0000
Hi Weiqiang, Thanks for addressing the comments, I have reviewed the update draft, I'm fine with it. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Weiqiang Cheng [mailto:chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 4:55 PM > To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>; rtg-ads@ietf.org > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection@ietf.org; > mpls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt > > Hi Mach, > > Thanks a lot for your comments. An updated version of draft-ietf-mpls-tp- > shared-ring-protection which solves your comments will be submitted when > the submission is open again. > > And please see some replies inline: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:05 PM > > To: 'rtg-ads@ietf.org' <rtg-ads@ietf.org> > > Cc: 'rtg-dir@ietf.org' <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; > > 'draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection@ietf.org' > > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection@ietf.org>; mpls@ietf.org > > Subject: [mpls] RtgDir review: > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt > > > > Hello, > > > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this > > draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or > > routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, > and sometimes on special request. > > The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, > > it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other > > IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them > > through discussion or by updating the draft. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt > > Reviewer: Mach Chen > > Review Date: 2017/2/23 > > IETF LC End Date: > > Intended Status: Standards Track > > > > Summary: > > I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be > > resolved before publication. > > > > Comments: > > This document may need some paragraph restructuration or adjustment to > > make it more readable, for example , before jumping into the detail of > > some processes, it's better to give some introduction to the scenarios > > and relevant conditions, and the used terms need to be defined before > being used. > > > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > > > Minor Issues: > > > > 1. > > The implicit fundamental pre-condition of the proposed MSRP is that, > > for each protected LSP, the egress and the ingress LSR have to > > negotiate (or through NMS, or static configurations) the LSP label that will > be pushed by the ingress. > > The label has to be a label that the egress must know how to handle > > it, otherwise, when the packet exits the ring tunnel, the packet will > > be mis-forwarded to non-intended node or dropped. This condition and > > probably the relevant mechanisms should be explicitly pointed out and > > described in the document. > > [Authors] Some description about LSP label allocation will be added in the > new version. > > > > > 2. > > Section 4.1 > > The Figure of "the logical layers of the ring" shows the innermost > > service is PW, is this document only applies to PW or other > > applications will be included. If it's later, some modifications are > > needed, and you need to check the whole document to make the relevant > descriptions and usages consistent. > > Figure 2 has the same problem. > > [Authors] Yes, other services can also be supported. In the latest version > “PW” is replaced by "service". > > > > > 3. > > Section 4.1.3 > > s/The clockwise working ring tunnel label RcW_D/ The clockwise working > > ring tunnel label of RcW_D And since RcW_D identifies a ring tunnel, > > not a label, and the author seems intend to use RcW_D(X) to identify a > > ring tunnel label, I'd suggest to add some clarification text to this notation. > > [Authors] The sentence will be rephrased to make it clearer. > > > 4. > > Section 4.4.1 > > Suggest to move Figure 11 to under "Bullet 1. Single-node > > interconnected rings." > > [Authors] Done. > > > > > 5. > > Section 4.4.4, the penultimate paragraph > > "...LSP1->R1cW_F&A(D)->R1aP_F&A(D->C->B->A)->R2cW_I(A->F->G->H- > >I)->LS > > P1.", what's reason to add "R1cW_F&A(D)" into the switching path? > > Seems it's redundant. > > [Authors] Agree, the redundant part will be removed. > > > 6. > > Section 4.4.3, > > In my understanding, the ring tunnels to virtual interconnected group > > are shared by all LSPs that needed to be forwarded to other rings, > > right? If so, it's better to add some text to explicitly state this. > > [Authors] Yes, some description will be added to reflect this. > > > 7. > > Section 5.1 > > " When the failure has cleared and the Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer has > > expired, the nodes sourcing RPS requests MUST drop their respective > > switches (tail end) and MUST source an RPS request carrying the NR > > code. The node receiving from both directions such an RPS request > > (head end) MUST drop its protection switches." > > > > Above text introduces the "tail end" and "Head end" tems, but the > > document does not have detail definition and introduction to these > > terms. Suggest to give the definition of these term in the terminology and > notation section. > > [Authors] The "tail end" and "head end" will be replaced with detailed > description. > > > 8. > > Section 5.1 > > "A destination node is a node that is adjacent to a node that > > identified a failed link." > > > > Based on the above text, the "destination node" cannot be uniquely > > determined, since a node in a ring has two adjacent nodes. Some > > clarification or more accurate description is needed. > > [Authors] The sentence has been rephrased to make it clear. > > > 9. > > Section 5.1.2 > > s/sane ring/same ring > > Done. > > > 10. > > Section 5.1.3. Ring Node RPS States > > > > Are those RPS states per node or per ring tunnel or per egress? > > Whatever for either case, the document should state it explicitly. > > > > And according to the explanation of each state, seems that the states > > are mutex each other. Considering the steering mode, seems that a node > > may be at both switching and pass-through state, right? > > > > BTW, for those RPS codes, it's better to add a reference to the > > section (Section > > 5.2.1.1) to give a hint to the reader that there will be detailed > > explanation in the following sections. > > [Authors] > As indicated by the title of 5.1.3, the RPS state is per node. > > In steering mode, a node can be in either switching or pass-through state, > but cannot be both. > > > 11. > > Section 5.1.3.2 > > > > "A node in the switching state MUST terminate RPS requests flow in > > both directions." > > > > If a node in the switching state terminates RPS requests, how does the > > steering switching mode work? > > [Authors] In steering mode, upon receiving the RPS request, ring nodes > which are not the destination node would enter the pass-through state, and > the RPS request is relayed along the ring to the next node until it reaches the > destination node of the RPS request. > > > 12. > > Section 5.1. RPS Protocol > > "The described RPS protocol uses the short- > > wrapping mechanism described in section 4.3.2 as an example." > > Are there any differences when the RPS protocol used for wrapping and > > steering, if no, it should be stated clearly. Otherwise, it needs to > > specify the differences, or for each switching mode, define its > > procedures and state machine. > > [Authors] A sentence will be added to this section: "The RPS protocol is > applicable to all the three protection modes." > > > > > 13. > > Section 5.1.3.2. Switching State, > > > > The third paragraph describes the rules in case of unidirectional > > failure, but reader can not recognized this only when read the next > > paragraph. This section needs some restructure to make it more > > readable. BTW, since there are differences between unidirectional > > failure and bidirectional failure, there need some text to describe > > the rules and procedures for the bidirectional case IMHO > > [Authors] This section has been restructured to describe the procedures of > bidirectional failure and unidirectional failure. > > > 14. > > Section 5.2.2. Initial States > > a) > > It just lists a table and let the reader to guess the meaning, it's > > better to add some clarification text to help the reader understand > > the meaning and intention. > > > > b) > > In addition: > > > > | B | Pass-through | N/A | > > | | Working: no switch | | > > | | Protection: pass through | | > > For pass-through state, why the working and protection tunnel states > > are different? > [Authors] > When a node is in pass-through state, it allows traffic to be forwarded on > either the working tunnel or the protection tunnel. > > As described in section 5.1.3, > For working ring tunnel, "no switch" means traffic is carried on this tunnel. > For protection ring tunnel, "no switch" means traffic is blocked on the > protection tunnel, and "pass-through" means traffic can be forwarded on the > protection tunnel. > > > c) > > | D | Idle - LW | NR | > > > > What is the LW? I guess it means "Lock of Working", but it needs to > > be expanded it when first use. > [Authors] > > LW means Lockout of Working, it has been expanded when first use, and the > acronym "LW" is added right after the full name. > > Best regards, > Mach > >
- [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-r… Mach Chen
- [mpls] 答复: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shar… Weiqiang Cheng
- Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shar… Mach Chen
- Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shar… Weiqiang Cheng
- Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shar… Mach Chen