Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-01

["Reith, Lothar" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors and All,

please find some comments below:

Issue 1:   inconsistent use of the abbreviation "CV"

 in the title the subject starts with "Proactive Connection
Verification..." 

However, in the abstract the meaning of the abbreviation CV is
introduced as:

- Proactive Connectivity Verification (CV)

But in the section 2.1. Terminology the term CV is introduced as
follows:

CV: Connection Verification

Suggested resolution: The abbreviation CV should be used in an
unambiguous way throughout the document.

 

Issue 2: Clarification of the difference between the terms
"Connectivity" and "Connection"

As the apparently ambigous use of the abbreviation "CV" shows, the terms
"connectivity" and "connection" may be used synonomously in some cases.
However, I believe the concepts "Connectivity" and "Connection" are
different. 

Suggested Resolution: Provide a reference to where these terms are
defined, and double check if the usage of these terms is always aligned
with these definitions.

This should also help the reader in understanding the difference between
the terms "connectivity", "connection", and "path", which are all used
in the document, and perhaps also to the term "tunnel" in the meaning
"MPLS TP tunnel" as related to issue 3 below:

 

Issue 3:  I am missing any mention of "MPLS-TP tunnels", even though an
important construct within MPLS_TP is a connection which is provided
across a working and a protection LSP.

Suggested Resolution: Consider adding a section "applicability to MPLS
TP tunnels",  or add some wording in some other way that explains, if cc
and cv are affected by the state of an MPLS TP tunnel being traversed,
e..g when the tunnel switches from the working LSP to the protection
LSP.

Best Regards, Lothar