Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05: (with COMMENT)

[IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

>>> 
>> 
>> Both MUST be included.
> 
> Then I suggest something like "Both the PRL MP Status and an MP FEC TLV MUST…"

Ok, I’ll make that change.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 4.1.3, last paragraph:
>>> Just “recommended”? Is link flapping a minor enough that it doesn't
>>> justify a MUST?
>> 
>> Well, its really an implementation choice to save resources being using in deleting and re-creating the tLDP session. If the implementation has means to deal with this or has other mechanism to solve this problem, that is fine too.
> 
> Okay, A few words to that effect might be helpful.

Well, in that section I’m already making the reader aware of the fact that a tLDP session may be flapping due to link flapping, and what solution can be applied to mitigate it. I don’t think more words are necessary here. Are you ok if we keep it like it is?

> 
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> 
>>> "MUST encode PLR Status Value Element": Missing article.
>> 
>> What do you mean here?
> 
> "MUST encode _the_ PLR Status Value Element". (or possibly _a_ PRL Status Value Element)

Got it ;-)

Thx,

Ice.