Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv

["Hejia (Jia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I noticed a 01 version of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv is available. So I based my MPLS RT review on that version. I think the document is coherent, useful, technically sound and ready to be adopted as a WG draft. Just one comment:

1) In the Abstract part, it is written as

   No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses a TLV. Furthermore, it
   is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant
   problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to
   be processed substantially in hardware, the use of TLVs in
   undesirable.

The whole paragraph seems talking generally about TLVs for G-ACh messages, not specifically an ACH TLV. This might not be so accurate since we have some G-ACh channel type using TLVs in its message, e.g. RFC 6428 defines a source MEP-ID TLV for the MPLS-TP CV type which also requires hardware processing. I think it might be better to simply say ACH TLV is not used and may cause additional processing which is not desirable. Or some better wording...

Thanks!


B.R.
Jia


-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2013年5月8日 16:01
收件人: Lizhong Jin; Hejia (Jia); Gregory Mirsky; Eric Osborne (eosborne); Martin Vigoureux
抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv

Jia, Lizhong, Greg and Eric,

You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00.

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.

Are you able to review this draft by Mat 24, 2013?

Thanks, Loa
(as MPLS WG chair)
-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]