[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-03
Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Wed, 13 July 2011 22:10 UTC
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 2763321F8B66 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9LUSdFj6kOzM for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A4921F8B50 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.107.114.65] (dhcp-128-107-114-65.cisco.com [128.107.114.65]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A67F7FF6; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:10:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E1E17D0.10602@venaas.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:10:24 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-03
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:10:37 -0000
Hi, 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html 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-mldp-recurs-fec-03 Reviewer: Stig Venaas Review Date: July 13, 2011 IETF LC End Date: July 11, 2011 Intended Status: Proposed Standard The document is well written, and I only have two very minor issues. Minor issues/questions: 1. Do the address families in the outer and inner FEC elements need to be the same? It should be pointed out, at least if that is a requirement. 2. Regarding security considerations. It seems that someone can use a series of recursive FECs to basically do source routing? Is this be a concern? 3. In the IANA considerations, why types 6 and 7 here? There aren't that many defined already, are there? Editorial: 4. In section 3.2.1 paragraph 5 or so, it says "though the use of the MVPN". This should be "through". 5. The term "unsegmented" is used, while in the MPVN reference, draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10, non-segmented is used. These should match. 6. In the security considerations it says "cause he multipoint LSPs". That is all, Stig