[mpls] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04: (with COMMENT)
"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 31 August 2016 15:33 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CF612D1DD; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147265759468.13229.7922845579077627227.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:33:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/m1qhmIRzCCUWNYYD9H-zr-bNqa8>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, sob@sobco.com
Subject: [mpls] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:33:15 -0000
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted by Scott Bradner in his OPS DIR review, 2 issues worth addressing IMO. I did an OPS-DIR review of Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL) (draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04) The draft extends the existing MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute multipath mechanisms to support LSPs that use an Entropy Label. The primary operational impact of this technology is to provide an additional tool for network operators to debug their networks - a good thing. I found the draft a bit hard to follow, it seems to be more a collection of data points than a clear narrative but I do not think it is worth a rewrite to make it easier to understand. I found one thing that raises an operational concern - the next to last paragraph in section 2 says: “All LSRs along the LSP need to be able to understand the new flags and the new multipath information type.” But I do not see a mechanism discussed to check to see if that is the case (like the high order two bits of IPv6 options). If there is a mechanism it might be good to describe it, if there is not, a statement that verifying this condition is outside of the scope of the draft would be helpful The same paragraph goes on to say “It is also required that the initiating LSR can select both the IP destination address and label to use when transmitting MPLS echo request packets.” It might be helpful to say under what conditions this is or is not the case. Otherwise, the draft seems ready for publication.
- [mpls] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise