Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05

On 03/09/2012 11:18, kenji.fujihira.dj@hitachi.com wrote:
> Hi, authors and chairs.
>
> As the MPLS-RT process, I've reviewed draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05.
>
> a. Is the document coherent?
> It is almost coherent. I have two comments.
>
> - Section 7. (Network Management)
> I think the following description should be moved from section 7 to section 4 (OAM).
> "Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for
>  MPLS Networks [RFC6374] already considers the P2MP case and it is not
>  thought that any change is needed to the MPLS-TP profile of [RFC6374]
>  [RFC6375]."
Done.
>
> - Section 1.2. (Terminology)
> I suppose PM is "Performance Monitoring", not "Performance Measurement",
> referring to RFC5921, 5951 and 6371.
Done
> b. Is it useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks)?
> I believe this draft is useful. If possible, comments from operators will help.
>
> c. Is the document technically sound?
> My concern is 1:n protection. 
> As addressed in section 6, it needs further discussion.
> Relating to this point, it will be valuable if the draft lists up protection types
> P2MP MAY support (for example, partial tree protection as addressed in section 6).
The draft says:
More sophisticated survivability approaches such as partial tree
protection and 1:n protection are for further study.

The further study can happen during the WG phase of the draft. At this
stage the draft is only up for WG adoption not WG LC, and thus the test is
whether the draft is a good starting point for the WG to work on it, and
I suggest that it passed that hurdle.

>
> The other descriptions are clear and well aligned with referred RFCs. 
>
> d. Is the document ready to be considered for WG adoption?
> IMO, it's better to close my comments above on section 7 before WG adoption.
That one is done.

- Stewart
>
> Best Regards,
> Kenji.
>
>
>> Kenji, Jia, Dave;
>>
>> You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
>> draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05.txt
>>
>> Note to authors: You have been CC壇 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稚
>> 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
>> secretary, and CC壇 to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
>> may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>>
>> Are you able to review this draft by Sep 3, 2012?
>>
>> Thanks, Loa
>> (as MPLS WG chair)
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com
>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
>> Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
>>                                              +46 767 72 92 13
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> .
>

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

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