[mpls] Fwd: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-rmr

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Forwarding to the MPLS list


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-rmr
Date: 	Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:27:33 +0100
From: 	Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: 	[e-mail]
To: 	Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>, Jie Dong <[e-mail]>, Sam 
Aldrin <[e-mail]>, Eric Gray <[e-mail]>, 
[e-mail], [e-mail] 
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]



I am sorry this is late.

This is an interesting piece of work.

Given that it majors on topology and FRR and in many
ways MPLS is incidental, I wonder whether it would be
best progressed in MPLS or in RTGWG?

The proposal is essentially to construct rings
within a mesh network and use these for repair.

I am in two minds about the work. On the one hand one
could ask whether this is really needed given existing
work on FRR, on the other hand given that all repair
situations are by definition part of a ring sub-topology
this potentially has wider applicability than is
implied by the authors.

Given the above observations, I think that there needs
to be a much clearer applicability statement for this work.
The draft needs to call out the particular circumstances
in which a ring element of a mesh should be abstracted from
the mesh for special treatment in this
way. It would also be useful explain how the rest of the mesh
knows to treat this sub-topology differently.

The text itself is well written but I think the MPLS
WG needs to discuss the above issues and the chairs
need to discuss with the ADs and RTGWG chairs to decide
best place to pursue this work.


- Stewart



On 24/06/2015 17:03, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Stewart, Jie, Sam and Eric;
>
> You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-kompella-mpls-rmr-01.
>
> 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.
>
> If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what
> needs to be resolved before adopting it as a working group document, and
> what can wait until the document is a working group document and the
> working group has the revision control.
>
> Are you able to review this draft by July 9, 2015? Please respond in a
> timely fashion.
>
> Thanks, Loa
> (as MPLS WG chair)


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

.