[mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-framework

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@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 BA6001279EB; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:13:54 -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 USla62SaeV8C; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (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 597F4126CC7; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id j201so38903986oih.2; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N2NTURN5g4xiiLGi8xD7ECFo2QzKAKWKLrlRMJlaY4E=; b=sQO3JMQ0bBsQoT5WW+1mJQ5n/IwbJNK0a9pDTYsYQRriTbxS/Zw7/oM748qRPpsbOf PXV1Y+1rQgWHVTlX7qUkzp3yYK3OGrQ4jhdZNvNFkhl57jmp8AiBJEGTz8Qlx2zFS3HW 6CMLDGdVqEviqqmNU9FMSNEE272S8NpzH5u/KYDL7jppilstAw9X1earmpyNEFL5PBHe sCqsyyskx2K7OR6hzSui2ye4ALnrjRK0+Joq4PCW/fLcLcWeeniiCOwolBvsBWBjvQrv 8rxKQ/z25w8TboBG+XHJ875HlsPYAuP0z06WlcBjPcC7BTbEbgHfKBndukSAHRktPoGu Lj/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N2NTURN5g4xiiLGi8xD7ECFo2QzKAKWKLrlRMJlaY4E=; b=U7GjngTNpBed4B0ipK/SHSyX9MQRD8WKD/WDlqykcf6TJkL8sy/92XTeVApuP1qgsa GWDHKD+04C48f+07gtmvWMDXsOaYQF/1NIzuYl/W5B+rNuoDu0H6OUJ/kKDXFrE/lEmu uCBFem5otUbPdVvfknMQYLZtv77vmcKSQLcaP+zynqnT507bDla5iQS+sYl+m27LdSW4 fJ4NY7LI7oejwSsC1DhfPlS+TAWzT8O9Rijekd5Xt4LJZprRY1GvNEmaOe53CJaZyDAi ZM90RHy8lUCV8R+PwbqSLoIdfzBmr4ZfjCZkRWQbXWIqE+gbKN3vg4uGpftmNbtFcMHZ rgbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4xLRrMFnZnjxt537d0lW+gcKlwk66xNRCGzZYKFie8blvkaZT4 LqinvSRr1+6ANRw1WeQVdsLy83EnMPRO
X-Received: by 10.202.173.7 with SMTP id w7mr2799264oie.69.1493302432394; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.231.132 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:13:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU36Y6bo75K_UHhY3yZyyc8Sd6qiUz5vijwQa6F8JOr=vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-framework@ietf.org
Cc: mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cf5e8067557054e269106
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Y-2SVUDP140Pc56SZXte4W0q5fM>
Subject: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-framework
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: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:13:55 -0000

Authors and WG,

I have been selected as a pre-adoption MPLS Review Team reviewer for
draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-framework.

While not really necessary for WG adoption, I note that idnits runs clean.

The draft is short and straightforward. My only comment on the content is
that it may be useful to note that in some router implementations, the use
of a synonymous label may, depending on triggered action, force a packet
from an internal fast path to an internal slow path. In such cases, it may
be useful to limit the use of a synonymous label to a fraction of those on
a particular LSP or PW. However, as noted in section 4, this may lead to
ECMP interactions unless an Entropy Label is also used. It may also lead to
out-of-order packets on a PW.

Regardless of this comment, I feel that this draft is ready for WG
adoption, and does not need to be updated prior to adoption.

Cheers,
Andy