[mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-sd

[Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have done a review of draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-sd as part of MPLS RT process. Please find my comments inline. 

-sam

General comments:
-------------------------
- Have similar comment like other drafts. This draft contains the diff off what is not present in the existing RFC. Is the intention to create a separate RFC in addition to existing RFC6378, by correcting the priority scheme?

Nitpicks/Editorial:
-----------
- Clarity question, Is  it mandated to use PSC only as communication medium or there could be other means, like OAM?

- Sec 1.2, Could you please add clarity to the sentence
The priority level of Clear SF defined in [RFC6378] can cause traffic
   disruption when a node that has experienced local signal fails on
   both working and protection paths is recovering from these failures.

- In Sec 4.2 - When you say SHALL, is it interpreted as MUST or SHOULD?

Assessment comments:
-----------------------------
- Is the document coherent?
> Yes, it is coherent and consistent

- Is the document useful?
> Yes. Correcting the priority as identified in RFC6378 is needed

- Is the document technically sound?
- Yes

- Is is ready for WG adoption
- Not in its correct form. This document is mostly identifying changes to RFC. My preference is to combine all the changes to RFC6378 and re-issue a new RFCbis.  Otherwise, this will be very confusing to refer two or more documents every time to make sense of what is the correct behavior for PSC in linear protection. 
- If that is (creating new RFC bis) something not possible(hope there is a real strong reason for this), then the document should be edited to be more stand alone document. i.e. remove add/replace to more assertive sections for readers to understand without having to go back to RFC, every time.