[Pals] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Tue, 14 July 2015 17:55 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A311A6FEE for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cv8iqmx1kgqn for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 150E61AD0BA for <pals@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8437; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1436896466; x=1438106066; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject; bh=SnAGcL78R3PfeK5tVrBGWL1N8mRiaAkzhooW5grVzA0=; b=C2OHUizHZIl43lABWEYi9eP12ExctqZaNZIB4QMq6UN0ei+U1qVT7yhY RauJ9ShKEehVyevNbdk73i72jEiiJdfLksjK4I3H9PCRPZAYvYJMXBG6b vGz8lxTRYvfUCTR6xJtd+X28xX9Pfe6iFdRhxky8Ka90OS2PCBSgW/5K8 c=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,473,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="584077766"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2015 17:54:24 +0000
Received: from [64.103.106.124] (dhcp-bdlk10-data-vlan300-64-103-106-124.cisco.com [64.103.106.124]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6EHsOMO028580; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:54:24 GMT
Message-ID: <55A54CDB.3040805@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:54:35 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis@tools.ietf.org, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050201070407070909010204"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/AUp4ujpjJBdjIpRz6JqtMRbrJ6Q>
Cc: "pals-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pals-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Pals] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:55:01 -0000
Here are my WGLC comments on draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-01.txt SB> You should note in the metadata, abstract and intro that this SB> obsoletes RFC4777 Abstract SB> You have a CW change that should be noted here. 1. Introduction SB> This is the original intro. A number of things have moved SB> on and people are more familiar with the technology SB> than when you first wrote this. SB> It is worth reflecting on whether this is still the SB> right introduction to use 10 years after publication SB> and 13 years since the first WG draft. QoS-related issues are not discussed in this document. SB> QOS needs to be expanded. For the purpose of this document, PE1 will be defined as the ingress router, and PE2 as the egress router. A layer 2 PDU will be received at PE1, encapsulated at PE1, transported and decapsulated at PE2, and transmitted out of PE2. SB> Of course it's not just L2 packets - since you have IP PWs SB> and I am not sure that TDM is really L2. Note that this document was written to address errata in [RFC4447]. 4. Details Specific to Particular Emulated Services 4.1. IP Layer 2 Transport This mode carries IP packets over a pseudowire. The encapsulation used is according to [RFC3032]. The PW control word MAY be inserted between the MPLS label stack and the IP payload. The encapsulation of the IP packets for forwarding on the attachment circuit is implementation specific, is part of the native service processing (NSP) function [RFC3985], and is outside the scope of this document. SB> You might consider just having section 4, rather than empty SB> 4 followed by small section 4.1 6.2. PW Types for which the Control Word is NOT mandatory SB> NOT mandatory is not correct RFC2119 - I think you mean NOT REQUIRED If a system is capable of sending and receiving the control word on PW types for which the control word is not mandatory, then each such PW endpoint MUST be configurable with a parameter that specifies whether the use of the control word is PREFERRED or NOT PREFERRED. SB> (NOT) PREFERRED are not RFC2119 complaint, we need to either use SB> RFC2119 terms of remove the capitals or put them in quotes SB> if the capitalization is formal notation. For each PW, there MUST be a default value of this parameter. This specification does NOT state what the default value should be. SB> I don't think NOT should be capitalised (same below) If a system is NOT capable of sending and receiving the control word on PW types for which the control word is not mandatory, then it behaves exactly as if it were configured for the use of the control word to be NOT PREFERRED. SB> 2119 again with NOT PREFERRED 9. Changes from RFC4447 The changes in this document are mostly minor fixes to spelling and grammar, or clarifications to the text, which were either noted as errata to RFC4447 or found by the editors. However a new section (6.3) on control-word renegotiation by label request message has been added, referencing RFC 6723. The diagram of C-bit handling procedures has also been removed, as the updated diagram in RFC 6723 is now definitive. SB> This should be reflected in the Abstract, and probably moved up to SB> the introduction, or at least a pointer placed in the introduction. 14. Additional Historical Contributing Authors SB> It is convention to put additional names before the authors/editors SB> so that that the authors are at the end of the document. SB> SB> In many cases we know that the original authors have changed SB> their details, and I wonder whether it would not be appropriate SB> to at least say "now at foo corp, email address bar" - Stewart
- [Pals] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Pals] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-pals-rfc44… Luca Martini