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

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,

Thanks for your comments!

Please see my reply inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:26 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; Stewart Bryant;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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.

How about this:

"Further, the operators may apply different protection mechanisms on different parts of the network (e.g., deploy 1:1 protection in one part and 1+1 protection in other parts). As such, operators may prefer to have a user's traffic traverse the same fiber."

Best regards,
Mach
>