[mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-12
Jon Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wed, 08 March 2017 05:51 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B291293FD; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Jon Mitchell <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 21:51:06 -0800
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-12
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 05:51:06 -0000
Reviewer: Jon Mitchell Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document is Ready with Nits. I share the concern that it's not totally clear upfront this is a requirements versus solution document. There is also not much in the way of requirements of notification or how to signal back to the operator that a fault has occurred, but this may be OK if whatever solution would meet the requirements of this draft will include such text or rely on existing mechanisms discussed in RFC6371.
- [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hi... Jon Mitchell