[mpls] Fwd: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-rmr
Stewart Bryant <email@example.com> Mon, 13 July 2015 16:29 UTC
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A43F1B2C2B for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([18.104.22.168]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0krTbstp4hj2 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [22.214.171.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7457A1B2C29 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; email@example.com; l=8886; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1436804944; x=1438014544; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=elUVMCkpfrov2AgEXS7EjP8rqo+lVd3y4KC7vytAfWY=; b=KL2zqCNF1uZgRb5Eh2tfD2j7AvFeH04uKGDcHvQ27S24ZsadqVTOuPZy f5nfjYlaGcm4mluBFsdH1Ci54kWhWNgssdlZlNs8gs8eb9DkW7MeKi1S4 61QQeRbRFJvQU+FDJC+4VKVyD43/sw1LBQ6t56n5aNnQrFDALo8ZvQy9H 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,463,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="582856468"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([126.96.36.199]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2015 16:29:02 +0000
Received: from [10.55.98.184] (ams-stbryant-8817.cisco.com [10.55.98.184]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6DGT2gg003511; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:29:02 GMT
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:29:04 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080004090500060402000308"
Subject: [mpls] Fwd: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-rmr
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:29:07 -0000
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 <email@example.com> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org To: Loa Andersson <email@example.com>, Jie Dong <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sam Aldrin <email@example.com>, Eric Gray <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org 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 .
- [mpls] Fwd: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-… Stewart Bryant
- [mpls] FW: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-… Dongjie (Jimmy)