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

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Sun, 01 October 2017 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.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 82D73134B31; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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] 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 Q27a1uGZzJZq; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (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 41DC1134B2D; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 85so5293545ith.2; Sun, 01 Oct 2017 14:08:48 -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=LzdFLTxwuE0U5th9NGf4e7xCDiAWLwANu7KnlSV6YS8=; b=kSVOJMuQVt6CnfIlCnCjlFhoTPFJRmgJA4i+eJ9jmqeInvhmn8TWLzEPaJzHmDh0tU pdQNEbIF2UCS4NLQpvTP3OBxuKBtwgGBSGFDWQO7wMajoy2IDIaCpS379timE1lXrVgH uFfQEKucoPEze4KqzQGFiY3ErE/YUsbAxAIQLVw0nYg08wJz7OMzDe3jcRUS839TGk9X 9ipDwS7k9mkcZ2QIF4if5mHUSSRqU+UknbzIgwaRo6GHPd/6w8nD2mK8vCZRb9X+/vSV uF0y86A6cvzXJYbXzL3XJKHrgEtYG+NaWH7lxGjETrIq5rcniVb5Pt3t6K+u/aO4GoD4 QWeg==
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=LzdFLTxwuE0U5th9NGf4e7xCDiAWLwANu7KnlSV6YS8=; b=pav0W5ZCYbZ5xs2YOpZrjzHYio2cMx62bAMR+l4L6JsNIABa/r4XJM+YH3Xd4WoMe8 GMl4k2beaDrxXBzA1W4/bQLN9ORLakJnFsdrQja4Yh+va7E4s9kiLPbjKkw0ywrWRFQi nJghig7HRaNJPTci5oVLdlYCoaVwAxM/qmVbs5dZ7TWolfy9xApDvCtw+ZQ9V1kj+cCP ZJt9TbCwkmOdxA3TJr+8CdkM1G71fzhEWhrdCBZZOUoGQjCcofruaSu9Kf9Y9xo2U5M/ o8reYfONcoqOqXgCRqqyMneHzqaCZuiPiMvV165799f5mH+/R++KKwixpmU9I6odQvKq KB3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXNmZ4vw8rGa2VCZwj3sdm5D/dZNp42XZTCFZx6pwGgXMHJFXI6 aRht68EvrPp21oRG6Cmx+bGWLOJaRMbKz0GCMWQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBxOt58cv8qyoKCP2T8s5R6HgdVsds7wFTV0sb2XzEgFt5vjK+5iltPlGcHf4KStZeVFu1Bbq2233hJdYKJibE=
X-Received: by 10.36.1.12 with SMTP id 12mr9855010itk.84.1506892127504; Sun, 01 Oct 2017 14:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.7.216 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9240A4AD-4185-47E4-8D91-4F043787FCD0@juniper.net>
References: <d6676034-3841-e79f-f833-419e6c97d0de@pi.nu> <9240A4AD-4185-47E4-8D91-4F043787FCD0@juniper.net>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 17:08:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTt7Wd6dijY1xZeB1iUR3stkDbbcNT7chdpnG8Yfu34ZUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net>
Cc: "draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org" <draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org>, "swallow.ietf@gmail.com" <swallow.ietf@gmail.com>, "loa@pi.nu" <loa@pi.nu>, "n.leymann@telekom.de" <n.leymann@telekom.de>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134f6a6f98f40055a82a904"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Kajkb0VnW8dx1uVqECrshQd8__o>
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 <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: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 21:08:52 -0000

Yimin, Hi!

Thanks for the review. We'll address the editorial nits mentioned below in
the next rev.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net> wrote:

> Dear Authors, WG Chairs, and colleagues,
>
> I was selected as an MPLS-RT reviewer for draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02.
> I’ve now completed my review with the following consideration.
>
> - The draft targets on decoupling RSVP protocol state from MPLS forwarding
> plane state, which is a well-known challenge in today’s scaling MPLS
> networks.
> - It introduces the “pop-and-forward” paradigm to RSVP LSPs to take
> advantage of the simplicity of the segment routing MPLS forwarding plane,
> which is an elegant and generic solution.
> - It is well written in a coherent manner.
>
> Therefore, I support this draft to be adopted as a WG document.
>
> Besides that, I do have a few of other comments, and hope they can be
> addressed while the draft is progressing. However, these comments should
> not be considered as gating the adoption.
>
> [1] In some places in sections 3 and 10, “SHOULD” may be replaced by
> “MUST”.
>
> Example: An LSR SHOULD allocate a unique pop label for each TE link.
>
> [2] The mechanism seems to apply to P2P LSP signaling only. It would be
> good if the draft can clarify that P2MP LSP signaling is out of scope or
> for future study.
>
> [3] Delegation hop and delegation label.
>
> It is worth clarifying in the draft that the cases of Figure-3 (i.e. Stack
> to Reach Delegation Hop) and Figure-4 (Stack to Reach Egress) may co-exist
> for a given delegation hop D. For example, LSP-1 may be signaled with the
> LSI-D-S2E flag, while LSP-2 (which also traverse from D to L) may be
> signaled without the LSI-D-S2E flag. D will need to allocate two distinct
> delegation labels to serve the two LSPs. This will help make this part
> easier to understand.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Yimin Shen
> Juniper Networks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>