Re: Fwd: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Wed, 12 May 2004 22:19 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15689 for <rtg-dir-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO24r-0003nn-NY for rtg-dir-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:19:49 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO23q-0003Ib-00 for rtg-dir-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:18:47 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO22w-0002nH-00 for rtg-dir-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:17:50 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO20H-0007mQ-4k; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:15:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO1Wx-0003r6-BZ for rtg-dir@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:44:47 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13493 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:44:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO1Wu-0001vc-QL for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:44:44 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO1Vx-0001RJ-00 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:43:46 -0400
Received: from av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net ([81.228.9.107]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO1VD-0000Un-00 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:42:59 -0400
Received: by av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 0F4193800F; Wed, 12 May 2004 23:42:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.178]) by av2-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F4737E46; Wed, 12 May 2004 23:42:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pi.se (h178n2fls307o1033.telia.com [81.226.61.178]) by smtp1-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CD438009; Wed, 12 May 2004 23:42:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <40A29A41.1020203@pi.se>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:42:25 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt
References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550445E949@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <1502524762.20040511163524@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <1502524762.20040511163524@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: rtg-dir-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-dir-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alex, the review included. ----------------- start review comments ---------------------- Summary ======= Although one find lots of nits when reviewing, and alos some more substantial things that nees to be addressed, see "Not so nitty comments", especially I think that we need to discuss the ue of normative references and the text in the security section - this is a much needed document. The scope and scenarions are right, what is needed is quite a bit of cleaning up. General ======= One thing I would like to see the requirment stated more stringent in a separate paragraph, and the discusion supporting this requirement in another paragraph. E.g. Requirment The box SHOULD be painted blue and have a footprint of no less than 10 x 40 cm and not larger than 20 + 60 cm. Discussion There are several reasons for this ..... Execusted in such a way the requirment becomes clearly verifiable (measureable), while the discussion contributes to understanding why the requirment looks like is does. Now those two elements are mixed and it is hard to decide what is what. Not so nitty comments ===================== References ---------- There are 18 normative reference, this seems to be high for this type of document. It is a bit unclear what "normative" is here. Since it is a requirment doc, that won't be implemented, the normative references should included thigs that is necessary to understand the teechnology in this RFC. I've a feeling that this is somewhat ambigious. The MPLS architecture is a informative reference while the RSVP-TE BGP is normative. Why is it more necessary to understand those than the architecture? Note: I'm not suggesting to add to the list of normative references, but to review the list and see if it is possible tp move some of them to informative. Introduction ------------ This document doesn't make any claims with respect to whether it is possible to have a practical solution that meets all the requirements listed in this document. I'm not clear on how to understand this, does it mean: - that it might be not be possible to have ONE single solution that meet ALL the requirments or - that it might not be possible to meet some of the requirments at all? Section 3.3 ----------- (last paragraph) Please note that the inter-AS traffic engineering over an IP-only network is for future consideration since there is no sufficient interest for similar requirements to those of IP/MPLS networks at this time. More specifically, this document only covers the inter-AS TE requirements for packet based IP/MPLS networks. This is kind of speaking on behalf of the "IP-only opertors", wouldn't it be enough to say that it is outside the scope of this document? Section 4.1.2 ------------- case 1 and 2, are these really inter-AS traffic engineering? isn't it two stiched cases of intra-AS TE? Each AS does its TE separately and the AS that is traversed just deleiver a SLA. Section 5.1.8 ------------- The proposed solution(s) MUST have minimum impact on the network scalability from both intra and inter-AS perspectives. I'm of the opinion that a it should be possible to verify if a requirment is met or not. Stating requirments as in section 5.1.8 makes this very hard. section 5.1.9 ------------- There SHOULD be several possibilities to map a particular traffic to a particular destination onto a specific inter-AS TE LSP. So, how many is several? 5.2.1. Confidentiality ---------------------- Since an inter-AS TE LSP may span multiple ASes belonging to different SPs, the solution MIGHT allow to "hide" the set of hops used by the TE LSP within an AS as illustrated in the following example: I'm not clear what "hide" indicates - not really hidden? Section 5.2.2.1 --------------- In some cases, a TE policy server could also be used for the enforcement of inter-AS TE policies. This requirement could allow SPs to make the inter-AS TE policies scale better. A very imprecise way of stating a requirment Inter-AS TE solutions SHOULD allow Inter AS TE policies to be enforced via servers? 7. Security considerations -------------------------- This section is more evaluation criteria for the coming solutions, I guess that it is worthwhile to discuss th Inter AS TE security in its own right here. Nit comments ============ naming references ----------------- Why is the reference to RSVP-TE called [TE-RSVP], I guess that the RFC-Ed will chane it to [RFC3209], but if we want to use a text if should be [RSVP-TE] Acronyms -------- There are a suprisingly high number of acronyms that it not expanded when they firt occur, some is not expanded at all, e.g. LSR and ASBR. PE, P and PE ------------ PE is expanded as "Provider Edge Equipment", while it in other places are said to "Provider Edge" ASBR Router ----------- In the definitions section there is something called a ASBR Router, since the "R" in ASBR is "Router" this becomes a AS Border Router Router, which seems kind of overloaded. section 4.1.2, 6th line funny ccharacter. network. This allows SP1Æs customers connected to SP2 PE router to (well same character shows up some more places) in figure ASBR RTR again = AS Border Router Router. does "local loop" == "access circuit" == "local loop access circuit"? terminology seems overloaded. ---------- end review ------------------ Alex Zinin wrote: > Loa, could you please review this document for the RTG-DIR? > > Thanks. > -- Loa Andersson mobile +46 739 81 21 64
- Fwd: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-t… Alex Zinin
- Re: Fwd: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mp… Loa Andersson