Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Jeong-dong,

I think this is OK - I'll ask the mpls-rt reviewers to be explicit about
which version of the draft they reviewed.

/Loa

On 2013-08-21 11:53, Ryoo, Jeong-dong wrote:
> Loa,
> After uploading a new version, I realized that I was not supposed to
> update the document during the MPLS-RT review period.
> Since this particular draft was supposed to expire tomorrow, I needed to
> upload a new version and just happend to incorporate the comments from
> Yaacov. Sorry about this.
> Best regards,
> Jeong-dong
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From : *"Ryoo, Jeong-dong" <[e-mail]>
> *Sent : *2013-08-21 18:01:03 ( +09:00 )
> *To : *Yaacov Weingarten <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc : *
> *Subject : *회신: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority
>
>
> Yaacov, thank you for providing the comments.
>
> I discussed your comments with the other co-authors of this draft, and
> the revised draft that has been uploaded just a few minutes ago contains
> the updates reflecting your comments.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority-01.txt
>
> The followings are the resolution of the comments, and incorporated in
> the new draft:
>
> Comment 1: All the LSs have been removed from the references, and any
> necessary materials have been transferred into the draft.
>
> Comment 2: The particular example related to the priority level of Clear
> SF is moved from the LS to the draft. The motivation of Freeze has been
> explained in the context of priority modification.
>
> Comment 3: This comment was not for the authors of this draft.
>
> Comment 4: I am not sure if you are aware of the result of discussions
> in the last IETF meeting. There was a general agreement on the need of a
> new draft to provide a method to integrate all the drafts into PSC in a
> backward compatible manner and to provide the state machine description
> when all the features are enabled to satisfy the ITU-T transport
> requirements. This new draft is now being prepared.
>
> If there is any misunderstanding on your comments or any question on the
> updates, please let me know.
>
> I appreciate your help and support on this draft.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeong-dong
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From : *"Yaacov Weingarten" <[e-mail]>
> *Sent : *2013-08-16 04:40:34 ( +09:00 )
> *To : *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc : *
> *Subject : *[mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority
>
> Hi,
> I was requested to conduct an initial review of
> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority-01 as part of the effort to determine if
> the draft is suited for a WG adoption poll. I have read the draft and
> have the following notes:
> 1. I find it rather disconcerting that the draft is referencing a LS
> that was received from the ITU. While I am sure that the points rasied
> in the LS as very well thought out and pertinent, I cannot see that the
> LS should be considered a "standards document" that could be referenced
> by a future RFC. At best, the LS could be considered a "contribution" at
> an ITU meeting, and I do not believe that an ITU document would
> reference a contribution! I therefore think that the authors should
> transfer into the draft whatever information they feel is appropriate
> from said LS.
> 2. In general, the draft is addressing itself to two topics regarding
> RFC6378,
> a. Change of relative priority between SF-P and FS - the suggestion is
> essentially to rollback the relevant changes that were made to the RFC
> during the final IESG review to the version previous to that review.
> b. Change of relative priority between ClearSF and SF/SD. This is based
> on a particular use-case that is mentioned in the referenced LS, and
> that I suggested be explicitly explained in the draft.
> c. Introduce (in an appendix) the use of a Freeze command. Not sure what
> the motivation for this in this context is.
> In my opinion, all three of the points are valid for work by the WG and
> should be fully discussed in the WG prior to publication of the draft -
> but could be discussed as part of a WG draft.
> 3. The format of the draft is also rather interesting - it seems to be
> presenting an errata note to RFC6378 rather than describing the desired
> behavior. I leave it to the WG Chairs to decide what is the best format
> for the draft moving forward.
> 4. One other note regarding this draft in the context of several other
> drafts that are proposing changes to the PSC protocol for MPLS-TP Linear
> Protection. I think that some of these should be combined into a more
> robust proposal for the sake of the implementers. Otherwise, there may
> be a need for a future "reader's guide" for an implementer to figure out
> what is in PSC and what is no longer there!
> Bottom line - I think that this draft presents valid points, it should
> be corrected to not reference the ITU LS prior to acceptance as a WG
> draft. And the WG should strongly consider consolidating this work with
> some of the other drafts to make a more complete and consistent
> definition of PSC available.
> Hope this helps,
>
> --
> Thanx and BR,
> yaacov
>
> /Still looking for new opportunity/

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]