Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-cdh-mpls-tp-psc-non-revertive-00//RE: MPLS-RT review of mpls psc documents

[정태식 <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mach,

Thank you for reviewing draft-cdh-mpls-psc-non-revertive-00.

As one of authors of the draft, I answered your comments.
Please see inline.

Best regards,
Taesik


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:06 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-cdh-mpls-tp-psc-non-revertive-00//RE: MPLS-RT review of mpls psc documents


Hi,

I have done my MPLS-RT review on draft-cdh-mpls-tp-psc-non-revertive-00, here are my comments:

I think that modification to Non-revertive mode, adding MS-W and renaming MS to MS-F are valid points. But I not sure whether there is a need to replace " Protecting administrative state" to "Switching administrative state".
[Taesik] I guess "MS-W" as "MS-P" because the draft does not use the term "MS-F". 
[Taesik] According to Sec 3.6 of RFC6378, “Protecting administrative state” means that the operator has issued a command switching the user traffic to the “protection” path. So, the current definition cannot cover the case where the operator has issued a MS-W command requesting to switch the user traffic to the “working” path. By replacing “Protecting administrative state” by “Switching administrative state”, it can cover both cases.

Read through the draft, it gives me the feeling that the draft just lists a set of erratas, I am not sure that this is the right way to progress the draft as it be. If the WG have the consensus on the content of the draft, IMHO, it's better to do a bis to RFC6378.  
[Taesik] I think that this comment is not for the authors of the draft.

Minor comment:
It's better to expand the acronym when first use, for example the MS-F and MS-W, I have to guess the meaning of until I see the Acronyms section. 
[Taesik] MS-W is already expanded in both Abstract and Section 1 of the draft. For MS-P, it can be expanded in both Abstract and Section 1 in the next revision of the draft. But, before doing this, we need to agree on the renaming because there is another review's comment not supporting this renaming.


Best regards,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 8:01 PM
> To: Eric Osborne (eosborne); Eric Gray; [e-mail]; 
> Yaacov Weingarten; Sam Aldrin; Mach Chen; Kamran Raza (skraza); 
> Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; VIGOUREUX, MARTIN (MARTIN)
> Subject: MPLS-RT review of mpls psc documents
> 
> Eric, Eric, Kenji, Yacoov, Sam, Mach, Kamran, Wim, Thomas and Markus,
> 
> You been selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for a set of psc document that 
> we will start progress through the mpls working group.
> 
> The normal rules and question for an MPLS-RT apply:
> 
> ---------- quote from a standard mail initiating MPLS-RT review 
> -------
> 
> Note to authors: You have been CC'd 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't 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 WG 
> secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments 
> may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
> 
> ---------------------- end quote -------------------------
> 
> The only difference is that we take on more than one document and that 
> there are such inter-dependencies that we want to coordinate how they 
> are progressed through IETF.
> 
> Please respond (at least) to the wg chairs and Martin that you are 
> willing/un-willing to undertake the reviews.
> 
> Since we are starting MPLS-RT reviews of 5 documents, with 4 reviewers 
> for each document and each reviewer have two documents, you'll need to 
> send the review with the draft name in the subject line, i.e. do not 
> respond to this mail with your review comments.
> 
> There is also a "PSC modes" document in the pipe, currently it is our 
> opinion that this document is necessary when we will start the wglc's 
> but is not necessary to make the other drafts wg documents.
> 
> Can you please finish your reviews eob August 23, 2013.
> 
> Here is the list of reviewers per document:
> 
> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority
> ------------------------------
> mach chen
> thomas morin
> yacoov weingarten
> Wim Henderickx
> 
> draft-cdh-mpls-tp-psc-non-revertive
> -----------------------------------
> mach chen
> eric osborne
> eric gray
> yacoov weingarten
> 
> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-sd
> ------------------------
> eric osborne
> sam aldrin
> eric gray
> kamran raza
> 
> draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
> -------------------------
> sam aldrin
> markus jork
> kamran raza
> kenji fuhira
> 
> draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates
> ------------------------------
> markus jork
> thomas morin
> kenji fuhira
> Wim Henderickx
> 
> 
> Authors,
> 
> Please do not update the documents during the review period, we will 
> tell you when the review period has ended.
> 
> When we close the review period you'll need to address the comments 
> from the reviewers and communicate with them (preferably on the mpls 
> wg mailing list) to make sure that they are comfortable with how the 
> comments has been addressed.
> 
> 
> /Loa
> for the mpls wg chairs
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls