[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: Éric 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: Éric 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] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-08: (with COMMENT)
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.
- [mpls] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-m… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [mpls] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… Mach Chen