[mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 14 September 2015 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9B81B318D; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 gT_DaAhUFC8b; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578521B315C; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150914220331.5981.89192.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:03:31 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/dNIs33iyW5rL0S0RYpTiU9RRRIQ>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 14 Sep 2015 22:03:34 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05: 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-mldp-node-protection/



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

The shepherd writup says that there has been no explicit discussion of
the two IPR disclosures. It's probably too late to worry about that for
this draft, and both disclosures have the fairly common "we won't assert
if you don't" terms. But I think we should encourage working groups to
have more explicit discussion for IPR disclosures.

-- 2.3, last paragraph: "Along with the PLR MP Status a MP FEC TLV MUST
be included"
Does that mean that both MUST be included, or if the first is included,
the second MUST also be?

-- 4.1.3, last paragraph:
Just “recommended”? Is link flapping a minor enough that it doesn't
justify a MUST?

-- 6:
It would be nice to show your work a bit more in the security
considerations. This draft adds new protocol elements and procedures. If
the working group has determined that those new bits add no new security
concerns, it would be good to say why.

Editorial and Nits:

A (probably first) paragraph in the intro that defined exactly what the
draft means by "protection" would be helpful. (The existing first
paragraph talks about how you provide protection, but one must infer what
this protects _against_.

-- 1, 2nd paragraph: Lots of the terms here could use (informative)
citations.

-- 2.1, first paragraph: Consider s/"we are describing"/"we describe"
-- 2.1, last paragraph, 2nd to last sentence, "See section 5":
 unbalanced parentheses.

-- 2.2, 1st paragraph:
s/"we are describing"/"we describe"

-- 2.2, last paragraph: 
"protection mechanism don’t" -- Noun/verb disagreement (singular/plural)
s/ help restoring/help restore

-- 2.3, 2nd to last paragraph:
I suggest the “A node N” phrase be moved to the first mention of N in
this paragraph.

"Removing a PLR address is likely due to a link failure, see the
procedures as documented in Section 4.1. ":
Comma splice. Consider a semicolon.

"MUST encode PLR Status Value Element": Missing article.

-- 3, 2nd paragraph:
"Ln that was assigned to N via the normal mLDP procedures, and Label Lpx
that was assigned for PLR (LSR1) for the purpose of node protecting MP
LSP via node N."
I can’t parse this sentence. (Incomplete sentence?)

-- 3, 3rd paragraph: "For this reason, the FEC Label Mapping (FEC <R,X> :
Lpx) sent by the MPT over the tLDP session to the PLR MUST include a
Status TLV with
   MP Status including a new LDP MP status Value Element called the
"Protected Node Status Value Element"."
Convoluted sentence. Consider breaking into multiple, simpler sentences.

-- 5, 1st sentence:
s/we are organizing/we organize/