[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.txt

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.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 C3C5D120025; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:14:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 zrx3RRwJRcp4; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:14:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 439E9120018; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id x21so25830062qto.12; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:14:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5uPV0GD6jA3q3UiIOnYGukJOlRuM4yeFp4OT8OvA3PI=; b=A7Yw46P0w6+LlZ+zLfPNCD0yZ3PH22xBwm6Etp3863dOPVMGq+6uogp1dXIkVyhnWV dRjmBSEW45ZXaQubUjfL9qMx4Y9o1gWemALfcqjcRwaKyi0vQ8Zid5qQES5xolPZSpCC ieZIL3KnQ6z8oYb3bO0F2n2L+uJq2+IwQAO2Hvhp2Kr0osnsFbJrrqDwhbVlePQiik5S 0VHetZDQfAm9JhEjEAHPFzsHTSUxDFnP6w1lKIvNKNJ+P6iyG6JoSyKl2JIx97VsJIz6 ml0LJlKKbr73SR+uWUDmBWcs8/X58cqIXdhLFwLktvC7OvTgUHfe+uEWERRCbWmxxdmD 2EkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5uPV0GD6jA3q3UiIOnYGukJOlRuM4yeFp4OT8OvA3PI=; b=Rd6qSPUfMPhk05Ja/su1GVr/0C5zfGduj5BfRdR7zuPneECfyIn2qO96hTJd5a0jwq iw45jd28PQMtFT/+zOnhdPmtn/5OCmIyybhJmLhJcYJt/wPfTqgC7rk3SjsaKeJjAZ4B aByjtUZ4fY83FBSJNsExnk/59eNCmirGLrJybhCCfgaWJSu+/PiL6wddKLvFXJsuM69g 1mKBWkFw1Qh3H4FbGabz9H58Wi1Kbzrn/z80eMdO/h5XS9YZnIhU8iMrp3dj5Y7rKev5 42Naxw2gDgFaQdVSJ6laDUm10Uszu4qlfMSQ5AoJhRafLTuGpkHSbdfugm9/+rN0QeyL djvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW0BNT28RGFEk8NaDFz5GUXEUh/CmxsWBpsOCiSSq9kYOPI2MD/ BQAyxSmvq7YR5ZErK2SJ0QH4NoZSrkykOzaLFB5AQUkJLFs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzMPtyGA0tTR0Xh5pWGqDvIKxR1KWoRRxrtgg0wnJGWq/PmXgx6uxNylJFaYF0q6aeVAOowcPUWMNtY8x5kagU=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:21b5:: with SMTP id 50mr14210189qty.60.1572898457094; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:14:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 15:14:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1QP-Jk4gSAqvsH7YrTuiAuW6r369QNPxrchH9nNBLK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.all@ietf.org, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd902d05968af5c8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/LXffIgjBeJGet7ehBMvq_WqUF-k>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 20:14:24 -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, and sometimes
on special request. 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-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.txt
Reviewer: Andy Malis
Review Date: 4 November 2019
IETF LC End Date: N/A (not yet last-called)
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

This is a well-written draft that is easy to follow. The draft has
benefitted from previous reviews, including during WG Last Call, when an
issue arose regarding the MTU size of the bypass tunnel resulting from FRR.
The draft is an extension to existing RSVP-TE signaling to reduce the
amount of signaling and increase the scalability for FRR. The draft is
careful to be backwards compatible with nodes that do not support it.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits:

Section 1, second paragraph: "large scale RSVP-TE LSPs deployment" ->
"large scale RSVP-TE deployment"

Section 2.1: The key words paragraph is out of date. The current wording is:

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

RFC 8174 should also be added as a normative reference.

Section 3.1.2:

"The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the contents
 of the B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION ID changes; for example,
 when PLR node changes the bypass tunnel assignment." ->
"The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the contents
 of the B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION ID changes (e.g,,
 when the PLR node changes the bypass tunnel assignment)."

Section 4: The title of this section may be better as "Backwards
Compatibility" rather than just "Compatibility".

Section 5: "message, a slightly" -> "message, slightly"

Section 6: This section includes the URL for an IANA registry. These may
change over time as IANA reorganizes their registries, and thus just
referencing the appropriate registry and sub-registry by name is sufficient.

This section also contains a reference to the IANA "Resource Reservation
Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry, but that registry isn't referenced
elsewhere in the text and should be removed from this section.

Regards,
Andy