Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rmr

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Mon, 11 February 2019 03:56 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 036F112F295; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:56:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 R1y5WsNjoYDm; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 16311127133; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id y1so4351080pgk.11; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:56:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lWKUzsCz2Ar51NOBqniJEavObkoW40yoZtz/CFPHZWo=; b=TJgdHc7L7jjELVUy/+DVqfu04zrbHBs9eHBnhXE8vMylwN3Or1DAZIjF6sKtXZNeki 9LJgejqBk62dGnOOWEvvYO79UDNWgqxxGO8QmxhT05BcdX2ReVGznNqjNu/LgqtkC/LK bwZ8BA38w/1Y1FFbhvF9UsjEll/yQO1V+LfPaWr1D8SEu2nreAnR0iHXu8BY0QDGr6wv vPrMNxTjf6UM4WZqW6BQqSyO0EaS3Li4COTrp205FbO3bdjVJoj2WPiuyh/IKi0a+Ezh vrZcRYpeqHh/XLX8oW0/wCmTSn5xCWAytec1YkD+5fYnbLp996oEzzaQTNzpTG027GVU miGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lWKUzsCz2Ar51NOBqniJEavObkoW40yoZtz/CFPHZWo=; b=WwajGmOpY8Tp5a3SEBM73Ru+G/N7f5b/iduZkn57LIb0CsDIAup1iOstqvN8B4biVa KLNBBskFWzN4kW2rnoSv2tIJxmOqiulJB3G7ddgbTGv2V6FWf6KlYfpDzDF5ikx+LcYf vVwNqiPAjc8HqFb4m4FXy7yxGTHHYeqNOXyhRYcCaYdTb0wxby0Tlxf3GRIAhUp7A4T0 u1QXA7CcNq+H+HT+r3XjOQMMD6HseGvaHH0dYBZrQ6Ybi7x4L2Jvr6Z+EU4wlCiRHwVW RvClwzjZ6pFLjnkNu+R4/lSx2sTDlDrLWwiJHqYSm/z+2sIaYZuRRf7Uhjmdpj4cVjQP AKoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua2tZKvPFf9yqii0xg0TTNd6Yxrh1eGDQd10sTwlZjdgcToLKC9 OCaMm9iE2p8ZK4PdeE9sIDBeesdznCb4A+R5M1o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbHzYO6TAsbkfrO4+c9wLh+QRoJS3iF2mqKnaDPvxQyu3UjQPG/5zTEURI3yWqQDP1GbADXTMF9PnIuEBgPjyE=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:4549:: with SMTP id s70mr34439488pfa.233.1549857407298; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:56:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1bf361f0-1987-ce4e-0671-d46886898e44@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <1bf361f0-1987-ce4e-0671-d46886898e44@pi.nu>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:56:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTu2NhCtmxuGPjh_uViaWLhvh6bg11sE3vs7UThFBzbzbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-rmr@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-rmr@ietf.org>, Deborah A Brungard <db3546@att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000036f1960581964c2b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/NtYqk63EnWvH0gHn1iRlOMpvar0>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rmr
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:56:51 -0000

Loa, Hi!

Sorry for sending this in late. I have reviewed the current version (09) of
this WG document. A few minor nits aside (listed below), the document is
pretty well baked and ready to progress to the next stage.

Regards,
Pavan

**
Nits:

-- 
Section 1.1

   Ring ID (RID):  A non-zero number that identifies a ring; this is
      unique in some scope of a Service Provider's network.  A node may
      belong to multiple rings.

The above can be interpreted as the Ring ID being always a non-zero number.
Consider adding something in the terminology section to signify that
"RID=zero" (promiscuous node) is a special case.

Same section:

   Ring links:  Links that connnect ring neighbors.
   Express links:  Links that connnect non-neighboring ring nodes.

Fix typo in both definitions -- s/connnect/connect

Also, in the same section:

   P_jk (Q_jk):  A Path (Resv) message sent by R_j for RL_k.

The above notation isn't used in this document or in either of the two RSVP
RMR documents that have been published so far. Consider removing it from
this document (it can be added in the base RSVP RMR document if needed).

--


Section 3.3.1

   The use of express links will be described in a future
   version of this document.

Please remove the above statement if there are no plans to add more text on
"express links" in this document.

--

Section 4.1

MBZ (MUST be zero) isn't a well-known abbreviation. Please expand it.

--

Section 4.3

   ..other nodes in the ring to identify the ring master.  There should be
   exaclty one; if not, each node restarts timer T2 and tries again.

Fix typo -- s/exaclty/exactly

--

Section 4.5

   The removal of the last ring link between two nodes, or the removal
   of a ring node is an event that triggers protection switching.  In a
   simple ring, the result is a broken ring.  However, if a ring has
   express links, then it may be able to converge to a smaller ring with
   protection.  Details of this process will be given in a future
   version.

Please remove the last statement from the above paragraph if there are no
plans to add more text on "express links" in this document.

Also, in the same section:

   The addition of a new ring node can also be handled incrementally.
   Again, the details of this process will be given in a futre version.

The last sentence needs to be removed/corrected.

--

Section 5

   A future version of this document will specify protocol-independent
   details about ring LSP signaling.

The above statement needs to be removed if there are no plans of specifying
the protocol-independent signaling details in this document. Consider
replacing it with something along the following lines:

   The ring LSP signaling procedures will be described in the companion
   signaling documents.

--


On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:11 AM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>; wrote:

> Working Group,
>
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-rmr.
>
> Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (mpls@ietf.org).
>
> There are no IPR disclosures directly against draft-ietf-mpls-rmr, but
> an IPR (#2661) were disclosed against the individual document that we
> adopted as a working group document.
>
> Both authors have stated on the working group mailing list that they
> are unaware of any non-disclosed IPRs that relates to this document.
>
> This working group last call ends Wednesday January 30, 2019.
>
> /Loa
> mpls wg co-chair
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>