Re: [PWE3] draft-medved-pwe3-of-config-00.txt posted, review please

[David Meyer <[e-mail]>]

Hey Andy,

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Dave, Jan, Andrew,
>
> An interesting draft. I have a few comments, with my WG chair hat off:
>
> 1. An editorial comment, there's no "-" or internal uppercase "W" in
> "Pseudowire", which is the proper spelling (I saw at least three
> different spellings in the draft).

Fixed, thanks.

>
> 2. Section 1.3 states: "PWs are
>    configured as bi-directional paths over the MPLS-TP network, usually
>    by an external management platform.  At present no open standards
>    exist to provision these PWs, and therefore there is a reliance on
>    vendor specific provisioning platforms."
>
> Certainly, there's nothing that prevents the use of T-LDP for PW use
> in MPLS-TP networks, this is already documented in section 5.2 of RFC
> 6373.
>
> Speaking of which, you should also have a table in your draft similar
> to the table in section 5.2 that shows how your draft meets the
> MPLS-TP control plane requirements listed in section 2 of RFC 6373.

This is part of what wasn't well stated in the draft. We're not
proposing a new TP control plane, rather just a way of provisioning
PWs over existing MPLS-TP control planes.
>
> You may also wish to read draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp,
> which specifies useful functionality in this area.
>
> In any case, you should be clear that this is an alternative control
> plane to T-LDP.

As mentioned above, its not an alternate control plane.

>
> 3. Section 4: In addition to RFC 6423, you may wish to include a
> reference to draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal, which defines the VCCV mode
> for use with MPLS-TP. You may also wish to reference RFC 5860.

Still thinking about this one.

Thanks for the comments. New (clearer) revision should be out by Monday.

--dmm