[mpls] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-08: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 08 April 2019 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE32120044; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 01:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu, mpls@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.94.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <155471164675.6386.10341508380803392820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:20:46 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/YbVsfcJMESKwJHqBbMj5yngZFs8>
Subject: [mpls] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-08=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Apr 2019 08:20:47 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Very useful document and techniques; but, I am afraid that I have some issues
with this document in its present form: nothing on the actual technique but
rather on how the specification is written.

COMMENTS

1) Section 3, I wonder why the "LSR Capability Discovery" TLV is not part of
another document: it seems so important to me that it would have deserved its
own document (and avoiding the fate sharing with the LAG discovery). Probably
too late to change anyway.

2) Section 3.2, while this section is about the generic discovery TLV, the text
in 3.2 is only about "LAG Description Indicator" flag. This text should rather
be in Section 4.

3) Traceroute with TTL expiring, will it require the 'expiring' LSR to check
for capability discovery ? Or is it a 2-step procedure (discover the path, then
ask for capabilities)?

4) Section 8, unclear to me where "Local Interface Index" is coming from... is
it an opaque value for the initiator or does it have any semantic ? Same
question applies to section 9 of course.

5) Section 10, in IPv6 any interface can have multiple IPv6 addresses, so, the
text such as "or the interface address" is not applicable, suggestion "or any
interface global address" (which can be ambiguous as well, perhaps the 'lowest'
address ?)

NITS

N1) Section 3.1, "it can send an MPLS each request message" I cannot parse this
part of the sentence

N2)Section 3.2, "When a responder LSR received" the use of past tense seems
weird in this sentence, esp when present tense is use after.