[mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Wed, 01 July 2015 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346DB1A8BB1; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d0hslEoNkqIe; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EEED1A8BB4; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 38af3955.0.362104.00-2268.1022692.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from <db3546@att.com>); Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:34:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5593fa867e6119d6-9cd6b0a016e7aa35c7374d83013ca7c319a5320c
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost []) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t61EYhod003596; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:34:43 -0400
Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com []) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t61EYZZE003417 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:34:39 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.itservices.sbc.com []) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:34:30 GMT
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:34:29 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls
Thread-Index: AdC0CvYHtr9AvWOoRYWWVFFMA2CqxA==
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:34:29 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C83B5D605C@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C83B5D605CMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=T/07uY2Q c=1 sm=1 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=BWk2EX7oiAcA:10 a=BLceE]
X-AnalysisOut: [mwcHowA:10 a=zOBTXjUuO1YA:10 a=ka1DfPz9O9CeAyBDA5cA:9 a=Cj]
X-AnalysisOut: [uIK1q_8ugA:10 a=bY7hOKH1BO1VLLqdyG4A:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=PPjILbJHWLbUaa6S:21]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <db3546@att.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/djdHiT6qahRZMrD-CHy9ptoNt6I>
Cc: "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:37:01 -0000


This draft has been sitting for quite some time. Your former AD was not happy with it and tried to work (unsuccessfully) with the authors. Myself, I sent email several weeks ago, and had no response. I'm sending it back to the WG, if there's interest to continue with it, let your chairs know.

Here's a brief summary of my main concerns:

-       I think my main concern is the readability and status as an architecture document. It provides lengthy descriptions of network design and numeric performance numbers which are estimates (as the document says, based on "assumed", "assuming", "expect") - not appropriate for an architecture document e.g. the claim to meet the elusive sub-50ms network availability.
-       The deployment scenarios (plural in the document, but I only see #1) is a solution (including use of 2119 for protocol operation) - not appropriate for an architecture document.
-       The document says it reflects SP deployments and defines implementation choices - not typical for an architecture document.

My recommendation is if this is an architecture document, need to cut after section 4. And reword a bit.