Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-04.txt

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 4:55 PM
> To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:05 PM
> > To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>;
> > '[e-mail]'
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > 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
> 
>