Re: [RTG-DIR] [Teas] RtgDir Review of draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Lizhong.
I am ok  to modify the proposed text.
Regards,
Rakesh


From: "Lizhong com>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, 22 February, 2015 9:26 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: rtg-dir <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, rtg-ads <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] RtgDir Review of draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02

Hi Rakesh,
Thanks for the quick reply. I read v05, and OK for the changes. One minor comments below, depends on you to change or not.

Section 5. Processing Rules
In general, the processing rules for the ASSOCIATION Object are as
specified in [RFC4872] and Extended ASSOCIATION Object are specified
in [RFC6780]. Following sections describe the rules for processing
(Extended) ASSOCIATION and REVERSE_LSP objects for associated
bidirectional LSPs.
[Lizhong]: across the draft, it is not explicitly saying what is the processing
rules for independent provisioning. It is better to say it here or other place.

<RG> There are related changes in the latest version of the draft, especially with REVERSE_LSP Object usage. Please advise if like to see anything specific.

[Lizhong] I like the explict description, like the following.
Following sections describe the rules for processing
(Extended) ASSOCIATION objects for both Single Sided and
Double Sided Provisioned LSP, and REVERSE_LSP objects
only for Single Sided Provisioned LSP.

________________________________
Regards
Lizhong

From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)<mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: 2015-02-21 23:08
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; teas<mailto:[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp<mailto:[e-mail]>
CC: rtg-dir<mailto:[e-mail]>; rtg-ads<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] RtgDir Review of draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02
Hi Lizhong,

Thank you for reviewing the document and providing your comments.

Please see inline .. <RG> ..

From: "Lizhong com>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, 19 February, 2015 4:49 AM
To: teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: rtg-dir <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, rtg-ads <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] RtgDir Review of draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02

Sorry, I missed one more comment below:
Section 7 Security Considerations
[Lizhong] the single side provisioning mode will allow one node to trigger another
node to setup LSP. This will introduce some security issue for the remote node.
Some administrative police may be introduced to allow/deny others to trigger LSP setup.

<RG> Agree, updated in the latest revision (05).

________________________________
Regards
Lizhong

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: 2015-02-19 17:21
To: teas<mailto:[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp<mailto:[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; rtg-ads<mailto:[e-mail]>; teas<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RtgDir Review of draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02
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-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02
Reviewer: Lizhong Jin
Review Date: 19 February 2015
IETF LC End Date: N/A
Intended Status: Standard Track

Summary:
The document is basically ready for publication. I found some minor issues, and hope
to see the clarification.

Commnets:
I paticipate the initial discussion of this draft. I am lucky to review it again. Overall, the
processing rule of independent provisioning hope to be explicitly described.
No major issues, some minor issues need to be clarified.

<RG> Great, thanks.

Major issues: No

Minor issues:
Section 3.2
In each of the situations described above, both provisioning models
are applicable.
[Lizhong]: for the second situations above, how could you let the reverse LSP
to be existed before the forward LSP for single side provisioning? Wouldn't the
reverse LSP trigger another reverse LSP?

<RG>  Fixed.

Section 3.2.1.
For the single sided provisioning model, creation of reverse LSP1 is
triggered by LSP2 or creation of reverse LSP2 is triggered by LSP1.
When creation of reverse LSP2 is triggered by LSP1, LSP1 is
provisioned first (or refreshed if LSP1 already exists) at node A.
[Lizhong]: LSP1 and LSP2 is in Firgure1? Better to explicitly say that in
the document.

<RG>  Fixed.

 A similar procedure is used if LSP2 is provisioned first at node B
and the creation of reverse LSP1 at node A is either triggered by
LSP2 or the reverse LSP1 existed. In all three scenarios, the two
unidirectional LSPs are bound together to form an associated
bidirectional LSP based on identical (Extended) ASSOCIATION Objects
in the two LSPs' Path messages.
[Lizhong]: I doubt if the following scenario is realistic in Single Sided Provisioning.
LSP2 is provisioned first, reverse LSP1 at node A is existed before LSP2.
The what is the Association Type in reverse LSP1? Before LSP2, will the reverse
LSP1 trigger another LSP?

<RG>  Fixed.

Section 5. Processing Rules
In general, the processing rules for the ASSOCIATION Object are as
specified in [RFC4872] and Extended ASSOCIATION Object are specified
in [RFC6780]. Following sections describe the rules for processing
(Extended) ASSOCIATION and REVERSE_LSP objects for associated
bidirectional LSPs.
[Lizhong]: across the draft, it is not explicitly saying what is the processing
rules for independent provisioning. It is better to say it here or other place.

<RG> There are related changes in the latest version of the draft, especially with REVERSE_LSP Object usage. Please advise if like to see anything specific.

Section 5.1
(Extended) ASSOCIATION Objects with both single sided and double sided
Association Types MUST NOT be added in the same Path message.
[Lizhong]: what if two types exist together? Only use the first one?

<RG> It says MUST NOT :)

Section 5.2
The REVERSE_LSP Object MUST NOT be included in a REVERSE_LSP Object.
[Lizhong]: typo here?

<RG> The document does not allow nested REVERSE_LSP Objects.

Section 5.3
In particular, any object that was copied as part of initial Path message creation MUST
be copied when modified.
[Lizhong]: not understood "copied when modified", is it "copied after modified"?

<RG> Fixed.

In both cases, when the egress node receives a PathTear message the
node MUST remove the associated reverse LSP using Standard PathTear
message processing. Tear down of the reverse LSP for other reasons
SHOULD NOT trigger removal of the initiating LSP, but SHOULD result
in the egress node sending a PathErr with Error code "Admission
Control Failure (01) [RFC2205]" and Sub-code "Reverse LSP Failure"
defined in this document.
[Lizhong]: the above description is not accurate. What if the egress node have
forward LSP down because of local link down? In that case, it will not receive
PathTear, it is still need to tear down the reverse LSP? It should say, whenever
the forward LSP is down, the reverse LSP SHOULD be removed.

<RG> Fixed.

Many thanks again,
Rakesh


Regards
Lizhong