IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Fri, 12 May 2017 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F4E1286AB; Fri, 12 May 2017 01:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jk3t2tBd_l6a; Fri, 12 May 2017 01:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B42EA1294D2; Fri, 12 May 2017 01:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DGL48792; Fri, 12 May 2017 08:34:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.39) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 12 May 2017 09:33:57 +0100
Received: from DGGEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.84]) by DGGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::b177:a243:7a69:5ab8%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 12 May 2017 16:33:49 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt
Thread-Index: AdLK+gfIqIAOQbYnRBmcL0Kch3fKmA==
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:33:49 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2917EBC27@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.194.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.5915739F.0020, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.84, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 77cbb30db962d15f261766c340e38a03
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/G17POlkp1STnCJqn1S84AUp-gRE>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:39:46 -0000

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt 
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 12 May 2017 
Intended Status: Informational

Summary: 
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments: 
This document is clearly written and easy to understand. 

Major Issues: 
No major issues found.

Minor Issues: 

1. Section 5.
The behavior of Path and Resv messages  process "After Link Failure" is different from the behavior of " Revertive Behavior After Fast Reroute". For example, for "After Link Failure" case, which link the Resv messages will send over depends on the link over which the Path messages are received, but for " Revertive Behavior After Fast Reroute" case, the Path and Resv messages are sent independently. Is this the intention, or is it necessary to unify the behavior?

2.
Section 7.1.  BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject

Two subobjects are defined in this section, the authors try to use unified text to explain the two subobjects, but IMHO, this is not a good way to describe multiple different subobject. Based on the current text, I think the authors are trying to use a single Type for both subobjects, but after reading the IANA section, obviously it's not.  So, I'd suggest to use dedicated describe test for specific subject, and for the type, it's better to use TBA1, TBA2...

3.
Section 8
"As described in
   Section 7 of this document, this subobject is not carried in the RSVP
   Resv message.  A new Notify message for FRR Bypass Assignment Error
   is defined in this document."

What's sub-code will be sent when BYPASS_ ASSIGNMENT subobject is carried in the RSVP message?


Nits: 
Section 5.1.1.
s/bypass tunnels T3/ bypass tunnel T3/

Best regards,
Mach

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email