Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time

"Hejia (Jia)" <> Tue, 06 December 2016 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521DC1294EE; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 06:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.116
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kLq5HryVqs8C; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 06:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED39C129EAD; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 06:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DCB08971; Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:43:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:43:55 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:43:45 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
Thread-Index: AdJEnDRTW91wAh9NQGWI9Jgih1a0ygLIa8Vg
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:43:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C847F0szxema507mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.5846CEAE.0004, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7b91733734ac0375ac5ecb23a1534114
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, 'Jon Hudson' <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:44:05 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing
Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF
last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to
provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate,
please see ​

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if
you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and
strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-11.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: Dec.6, 2016
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Standards Track

This document is basically ready for publication, but has minor issues that should be
considered prior to publication.

The draft is clearly structured and easy to read.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
1) Section 3.1, the description of "Type field" of PTP Sub-TLV format (following Figure 3) is
the same as the description of "PTPType". Shouldn't the PTP Sub-TLV follow RTM sub-TLV

"The Type field identifies PTP sub-TLV defined in the Table 19 Values of messageType field in

"The PTPType indicates the type of PTP packet carried in the TLV. PTPType is the messageType
field of the PTPv2 packet whose values are defined in the Table 19 [IEEE.1588.2008]."

Another question about RTM sub-TLV registry, why only PTP 2-step is defined under RTM sub-TLV

1) Section 1, first paragragh, s/Generalized Associated Channel/Generic Associated Channel
2) Section 3, first paragragh, s/select/selected
3) Section 4.7, last paragraph of Page 12, s/If match have been found, then the calculated..../If match has been found, the calculated....
4) Section 5, the first paragragh, " described in Section 4.6 or as described in the second paragraph of Section 4 and in Section 4.6, ...." Duplication? Not sure about what " the second paragraph of Section 4" really indicates
5) Section 7, Page 18(in the middle), BC needs to be spelt out, s/BC/Boundary Clock


发件人: Zhangxian (Xian)
发送时间: 2016年11月22日 16:41
收件人: Hejia (Jia)
抄送:;; 'Jon Hudson'
主题: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time

Hey, Jia,

Please would you do a routing directorate review of this draft?

The draft has been submitted to the IESG for publication.  The responsible AD – Deborah – has requested a review from the directorate before she initiates the IETF last call.  It would be great if you could review the document and send comments by 6th December.

You can find some guidance and a review template at the following link:

Please send your comments to the RTG Area Directors (​<>) and the draft authors, and copy the MPLS mailing list and the rtg-dir list.

Please let me know if you can do it, or not.

Many thanks,