[mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed-03

<Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de> Tue, 14 July 2015 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FC01ACD62; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r0Za5H-zoyci; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 956061ACD5D; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qdezc2.de.t-internal.com ([10.125.181.10]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2015 16:02:53 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,472,1432591200"; d="scan'208,217";a="294417411"
Received: from he113472.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.130]) by qde0ps.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Jul 2015 16:02:52 +0200
Received: from HE111644.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.13]) by HE113472.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:02:51 +0200
From: <Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de>
To: <mpls@ietf.org>, <draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:02:50 +0200
Thread-Topic: MPLS-RT review of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed-03
Thread-Index: AdC+PcT+J6C8Nh5rR/SbGsOgRmpbuA==
Message-ID: <AAE428925197FE46A5F94ED6643478FEB1120B3F41@HE111644.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AAE428925197FE46A5F94ED6643478FEB1120B3F41HE111644EMEA1_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/kdS_pFpwQ689rlRAiGqhlyvB39Q>
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org, rcallon@juniper.net
Subject: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed-03
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:03:13 -0000

Hello,

I have been selected as reviewer of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed-03.

I think the draft is coherent, technically sound and operational useful. It extents the explicit path capability for the backward direction of _bidirectional_ forwarding detection (BFD). The document is ready for WG adoption.

Some comments:

Section 1.1.1, Terminology:
I am not sure, whether the term _MPLS_ is really required in this section.

Section 3.1, "Case of MPLS Data Plane": Structure of sub-TLV specification.
The whole section describes, that three sub-TLV are specified for usage: "Static", "RSVP-TE" and "Segment Routing". For "Static" and "RSVP-TE", the draft refers to the according RFC (that's fine). But the structure of this section contains only a subsection for "Segment routing" and the reference to the other sub-TLV is part of this subsection. I propose to add two additional subsections "Static" (3.1.x) and "RSVP-TE" (3.1.x) with the references and remove it from the subsection "Segment Routing" to be more coherent.

Section 3.1.2: "Segment Routing Tunnel Sub-TLV >
The section specifies the encoding of the SR tunnel Sub-TLV with the encoding of the label stack elements. I think it makes sense to describe the usage of this information in the draft ("copy this information to the label stack"). Is the remote PE (initiator) allowed to add additional segments bases on his local information or is the encoded label stack strict?

Section 3.3:
This section confused me. Maybe it should be considered to be rewritten (or explained specifically to me).
Who is the _initiator_ in this case for the BFD reverse path scenario?

Section 3.4: "Return Codes"
The paragraph repeats the description text of the return code 2 times.  The section specifies, that the egress LSR _MAY_ send back the return code. In section 3.1.1, last paragraph, the behavior is specified, that the egress LSR may set up the BFD session or not, but in both cases, it sends back the return code (are the MAYs are concatenated in the case, when the BFD session is set up - see also comment from Nobo?). This implies, that the egress LSR _MUST_ send the return code, when the reverse path is not known.

Section 4 "Use case scenario":
The "value N" and "value M" are confusing, because it uses the same vocabulary as the nodes in the network example (capital letter). It could be called "foobar" if it is not for interest.

Regards.

Thomas