Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr

Hi Rakesh,

    Another SR P2MP draft is draft-shen-spring-p2mp-transport-chain.

Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:03 AM
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>; mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@ietf.org <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org <draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr

Thank you Huaimo for the detailed review and your support for the adoption.
Attached please find the updated document and diffs that address your comments.
Please see responses inline with <RG>..

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:52 PM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com<mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>> wrote:
Hi All,

    I have reviewed the document and have the following comments.

    1.  The document is useful and technically sound. It can be considered for WG adoption.

<RG> Thank you.

    2.  The document seems talking about the Loss Measurement Message and Delay Measurement Message. Should it have some texts for Combined Loss/Delay Measurement Message?

<RG> Added section 6.3.

    3.  There are a couple of IETF drafts about SR P2MP Path.. The document just mentions one of them and the Performance Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or policy) is based on this one draft. Should the Performance Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or policy) be general enough for all?

<RG> do you have a specific P2MP draft on mind that should also be included in the example?

    4.  It seems that the Performance Measurement for a SR P2MP Path (or policy) is limited to one way and out-of-band. Should the document add some texts talking about these limitations?

<RG> Updated section 7.

    5.  The registry for the newly defined Return Path TLV Type and Block Number TLV Type is missing in the document. Is it the "MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object" registry?

<RG> Updated IANA section.

    6.  It seems that a new registry should be defined for the Sub-TLV types under the Return Path TLV in the document.

<RG> Added in IANA section.

    7.  In section 5.1. and section 6.1., Should "For both SR Links and end-to-end measurement for SR-MPLS Policies" be changed to something like "For both SR Links and end-to-end SR-MPLS Policies measurements"?

<RG> Corrected.

    8.  In section 6.2., should something like a user case be added into the sentence "The Block Number TLV is Mandatory when used.."?

<RG> Expanded the sentence.

Thanks,
Rakesh

Best Regards,
Huaimo
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cc31debd982dd4f82aba208d80d3eae44%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637273910199487505&sdata=v46CNS9WsmAblNY5nj%2F7yd%2BdWh6sROXzJbDPtXcrTsc%3D&reserved=0>