[Pals] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: Discuss

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-p2mp-pw/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 7.3. mLDP Opaque Value Element TLV Type

>From my reading of RFC6388, the "Value" in the TLV type is interpreted based on
the type and this document does not seem to specify what goes into the value.

Additionally, the document requests the type "0x3" but it looks like that type
has been allocated already to "Transit IPv4 Source TLV type" as per

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ldp-namespaces.xhtml#ldp-namespaces-11


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

* I think there is a typo in Figure 2.

The "AII Type" field should be labeled "SAII Type" instead?

* Why is the PW type referencing RFC4447 when the rest of the document refers
solely to RFC4447bis? Is this intentional or a mistake?

"* PW Type: 15 bits representation of PW type as specified in [RFC4447]."

* The term "PMSI Tunnel info" is used without being defined and is required to
calculate the length. I am guessing "PMSI Tunnel info" means the combination of
PMSI Tunnel Type, Length and Transport LSP ID. If this is so, please make it
explicit and define. If not, clarify.