[Pals] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08: (with COMMENT)

["Alissa Cooper" <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Section 1:

"Further, the
   operators may apply different protection mechanisms on different
   parts of the network.  As such, for optimal traffic management,
   traffic belonging to a particular user should traverse over the same
   fiber.  That implies that both forwarding and reserve direction PWs
   that belong to the same user flow need to be mapped to the same co-
   routed bi-directional LSP or two LSPs with the same route."

I'm wondering if this is a bit over-stated, and if "protection
mechanisms" means specifically MPLS protection or if it is really a
euphemism for a wide class of things, some of which are in an individual
user's interest, and some of which are not (e.g., traffic shaping,
content filtering, etc.). I think these claims should be stated more
neutrally, e.g., "operators may prefer to have a user's traffic traverse
the same fiber" rather than talking about "optimal traffic management."
And "protection" should either be defined, or a more descriptive term
should be used.