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

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
>