Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05

Hi, Stewart.

The updated document has addressed my comments.
Thank you.

Best Regards.
Kenji.

>On 03/09/2012 11:18, kenji.fujihira.dj@hitachi.com wrote:
>> Hi, authors and chairs.
>>
>> As the MPLS-RT process, I've reviewed draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05.
>>
>> a. Is the document coherent?
>> It is almost coherent. I have two comments.
>>
>> - Section 7. (Network Management)
>> I think the following description should be moved from section 7 to section 4 (OAM).
>> "Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for
>>  MPLS Networks [RFC6374] already considers the P2MP case and it is not
>>  thought that any change is needed to the MPLS-TP profile of [RFC6374]
>>  [RFC6375]."
>Done.
>>
>> - Section 1.2. (Terminology)
>> I suppose PM is "Performance Monitoring", not "Performance Measurement",
>> referring to RFC5921, 5951 and 6371.
>Done
>> b. Is it useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks)?
>> I believe this draft is useful. If possible, comments from operators will help.
>>
>> c. Is the document technically sound?
>> My concern is 1:n protection. 
>> As addressed in section 6, it needs further discussion.
>> Relating to this point, it will be valuable if the draft lists up protection types
>> P2MP MAY support (for example, partial tree protection as addressed in section 6).
>The draft says:
>More sophisticated survivability approaches such as partial tree
>protection and 1:n protection are for further study.
>
>The further study can happen during the WG phase of the draft. At this
>stage the draft is only up for WG adoption not WG LC, and thus the test is
>whether the draft is a good starting point for the WG to work on it, and
>I suggest that it passed that hurdle.
>
>>
>> The other descriptions are clear and well aligned with referred RFCs. 
>>
>> d. Is the document ready to be considered for WG adoption?
>> IMO, it's better to close my comments above on section 7 before WG adoption.
>That one is done.
>
>- Stewart
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Kenji.
>>
>>
>>> Kenji, Jia, Dave;
>>>
>>> You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
>>> draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05.txt
>>>
>>> Note to authors: You have been CC壇 on this email so that you can know
>>> that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
>>> document.
>>>
>>> Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful
>>> (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is
>>> the document technically sound?  We are interested in knowing whether
>>> the document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn稚
>>> have to be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).
>>>
>>> Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and
>>> secretary, and CC壇 to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
>>> may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>>>
>>> Are you able to review this draft by Sep 3, 2012?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Loa
>>> (as MPLS WG chair)
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>> Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com
>>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
>>> Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
>>>                                              +46 767 72 92 13
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> .
>>
>
>
>-- 
>For corporate legal information go to:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>
>