Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT for draft-kompella-mpls-larp

Thanks to reviewers for the feedback, and Kireeti/authors for addressing them.
I’ve triggered an IPR poll in anticipation of the next step.

Regards,
Tarek (as MPLS WG co-chair)

From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:21 PM
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.ietf@gmail.com>, Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>, Xufeng <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-kompella-mpls-larp@ietf.org" <draft-kompella-mpls-larp@ietf.org>, "yingzhen.qu@huawei.com" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, MPLS Working Chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT for draft-kompella-mpls-larp

Hi Tarek,

I’ve updated the draft (version -11) with the review comments from Xufeng and Rakesh.  I may have missed a review from Yingzhen.

Are we ready to adopt this as a WG doc?

Thanks,
:k

On Dec 13, 2021, at 07:28, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks for all reviewers for taking the time to review and give feedback.

Authors, please work with reviewers on addressing all blocking comments and advise back.

Regards,
Tarek (as MPLS WG co-chair)

From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 12:14 PM
To: Xufeng <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>>, "yingzhen.qu@huawei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>>, MPLS Working Chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>>, "draft-kompella-mpls-larp@ietf.org<mailto:draft-kompella-mpls-larp@ietf.org>" <draft-kompella-mpls-larp@ietf.org<mailto:draft-kompella-mpls-larp@ietf.org>>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: MPLS-RT for draft-kompella-mpls-larp

Hi Tarek, Authors,
As requested, I have done MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10.

Yes, the document is coherent and technically sound. It is well written and is ready to be considered for WG adoption.
Below are some non-blocking review comments to be considered:

 3<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10#section-3>.  L-ARP Protocol Operation

Within the MPLS Fabric, the usual MPLS protocols (IGP,

   LDP, RSVP-TE) are run.

<RG> Does this include SR-MPLS as well?

3.2<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10#section-3.2>.  Egress Operation

o  a node SID advertised on behalf of H3; or

<RG> The draft should expand the acronym for SID.
Is this for Segment Routing? The draft does not discuss SR applicability elsewhere (e.g. Section 3).  Also there is no reference to any SR documents.

3.4<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10#section-3.4>.  Data Plane

If T1's reachability to H3 is via a

   SPRING label stack, the label L1 acts as an implicit binding SID.

<RG> Same Comment for binding SID and SPRING as above.

Section 5.2
The CT TLV has Type (TBD)

Is this Type TBD to be allocated by IANA? If yes, Section 7 does not mention it.
Also, should expand the acronym CT.

Section 7 IANA Section:

The document may add more information on the IANA registry type. I think it is following:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters/arp-parameters.xhtml
Hardware Types

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:19 AM Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Xufeng/Yingzhen/Rakesh,

You have been selected as potential MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10.

Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know that this review is going on.

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 *really* need 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.

Can you review the document by November 26, 2021?

Regards,
Tarek (as MPLS WG chair)
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls