[mpls] Fwd: MPLS-RT review of draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping

[Lizhong Jin <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, forget to send to the authors and the list.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lizhong Jin <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping
To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
"Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" <[e-mail]>


Hi,
Overall, this document is useful and technically sound, and is ready to be
considered for WG adoption. Besides comments from Curtis, two more in below:
1. Section 7.4
If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC Sub-TLV at FEC-stack-
      depth is TBD2 (IPv6 Prefix Node Segment ID),
Lizhong: typo? should be "more than 0"?

2. Section8, it says:
To avoid this
   problem, the originator of the "echo request" MUST NOT include the
   service label in the label stack of an echo request above the tunnel
   label of the tunnel that is being currently traced.  In other words
   the ingress must remove all service-labels above the label of the
   tunnel being currently traced, but retain service labels below it
   when sending the echo request.
It seems there is some risk to remove servicing label. In some case,
e.g., the packet with service label may enqueue to the highest priority
queue after service processing, while the packet without service label
will enqueue to lowest priority queue. Then it is possible the packet
may go through a different internal data path before reaching the traced
 tunnel points, because of the lack of the service label. What if this
packet in lowest prioirity queue is dropped? Then it is difficult to judge
whether the problem is happened on the traced tunnel points, or on
the path ahead of it.

Regards
Lizhong


On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Curtis, Vishwas, Pranjal, and Lizhong,
>
> You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-kumarkini-
> mpls-spring-lsp-ping.
>
> Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
> that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
> document.
>
> Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it
> useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks),
> and is the document technically sound?
>
> We are interested in knowing whether the document is ready to be
> considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be perfect at this
> point, but should be a good start).
>
> Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG
> secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
> may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>
> If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what
> needs to be resolved before adopting it as a working group document, and
> what can wait until the document is a working group document and the
> working group has the revision control.
>
> Are you able to review this draft by September 25, 2015? Please respond
> in a timely fashion.
>
> Thanks, Loa
> (as MPLS WG chair)
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>