Re: [Pals] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-01

["Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jie

Please could you also fix the following I-D Nit before you post the new version:


Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC6870]), which it
     shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
     documents in question.



Best regards


Matthew

From: Pals <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Matthew Bocci <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, 30 July 2015 10:54
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Pals] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-01

Hi Jie

Thank you. The changes you propose below should be fine.

I’ll post the shepherds write up as soon as you post an updated draft.

Best regards

Matthew

From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 29 July 2015 08:00
To: Matthew Bocci <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-01

Hi Matthew,

Thanks a lot for your comments, please see my replies inline with [Jie]:

Best regards,
Jie

From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 8:38 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-01

Authors

I am the document shepherd for draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-01.  I have reviewed the draft, and I think it is mostly ready to go. However, I have a few suggestions that I think would improve the clarity of the draft. Please treat these suggestions as last call comments.

Introduction:
"In some MS-PW scenarios, there are benefits to provide PW redundancy  on S-PEs, such as reducing the burden on the access T-PE nodes, and faster protection switching. “
I think you are assuming that it is faster because PW status messages have to propagate through less hops, but I am not sure that makes a huge difference because most deployments are only 2 or 3 hops. Please can you be more explicit.

[Jie] Since the switchover is performed on S-PE, this mechanism is segment protection of MS-PW, which means it could be faster than end-to-end protection. I agree in most scenarios there are only a few hops, while since the PW status message is processed by the control plane of each S-PE hop, there still can be some difference. We could make this more explicit by adding some description about segment protection vs. end-to-end protection in the introduction.

Section 3, S-PE Operations:
- I think you need to be more explicit about the mode that each T-PE operates in. It looks like T-PE1 has to operate as a master, and T-PE2 and T-PE3 always act in independent mode. However, the draft doesn’t explicitly make that statement anywhere (at least not for T-PE2 and T-PE3). Please can you add such a statement?

[Jie] Will add some statement about the mode of T-PE2 and T-PE3.

Section 6: Security Considerations.
I think you will need to be more explicit. It might help to add an explicit statement that the requirements that apply to those RFCs apply here. You should also add a reference to RFC6073 here as S-PE security is relevant.

[Jie] Will add the explicit statement and the reference to RFC6073 to the Security Considerations section.

Regards

Matthew