Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06.txt
"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Fri, 25 May 2012 18:45 UTC
Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.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 E140E21F873B for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 11:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W3Q3otBTGEva for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 11:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D9F21F8736 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 11:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=4892; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337971535; x=1339181135; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=qCCHGNVl92EqAT1dSNG92cPf9xDPIDJpXt2POgkEU4Y=; b=OFNjgKy5WWSRuqeDumUDZqhW+utaafemSBAAwWRRBv3ZjYgMuDyrl5gK RcxxxhFeh6nv2cOMS/T19zzFMtslVkACOD+1V4S9FE3vG95c1BLsubbxq E55ilXyBuJ8D14Moe7aOHdiTFspu/m1+zQIiyBQmmkVp5zDRPHzphigT2 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EANrSv0+tJXG9/2dsb2JhbABEtRaBB4IVAQEBAwESAR0KPwUHBAIBCBEDAQEBCwYXAQYBRQkIAQEEARIIARmHZgULmG+fVYsBhGZgA4g/mmWBZIJ+
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,657,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="86798198"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2012 18:45:33 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com [72.163.63.8]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4PIjXud016266; Fri, 25 May 2012 18:45:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-212.cisco.com ([72.163.62.219]) by xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 25 May 2012 13:45:33 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:45:32 -0500
Message-ID: <B33BBF99CFB5E74D918573915558D90F05091CD5@XMB-RCD-212.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0AC8FAB6849AB4FADACCC70A949E2F123BAF51FE6@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0x27njzESdP6MQQuWMyHV3lH3G1AIvbl0wAALGHQA=
References: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A577E0C9D2@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <C0AC8FAB6849AB4FADACCC70A949E2F123BAF51FE6@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>, rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2012 18:45:33.0391 (UTC) FILETIME=[90EAEDF0:01CD3AA6]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 26 May 2012 02:43:24 -0700
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06.txt
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: Fri, 25 May 2012 18:45:36 -0000
Hi Eric, Thank you so much for your review. I agree to the nits and > I am curious why the text under Figure 1 explicitly includes the possibility > that an LSR might implement GTSM capability negotiation but not > implement GTSM. But, again, this is a very minor issue. Could you paste the para that you are referring to? I see the following text under Figure 1: The G flag is meaingful only if the T flag is set to 0 (which must be the case for Basic Discovery), otherwise, the value of G flag SHOULD be ignored on receipt. But I don't think that this is the text you refer to. Any way, Does the note below (PS:) help? > To maintain readability, the draft should still say where this field is (that it is > part of the Common Hello Parameter TLV). > This way of representing the changes makes it clearer what the actual > changes are. However, this is a very minor issue. I am divided on this one. I like having the complete TLV illustrated, otherwise, I would no longer get the complete picture of the TLV itself. Cheers, Rajiv PS: Perhaps, we could update the 2nd last para of the Section 1 introduction as shown below to clarify the rationale: "Since" GTSM [RFC5082] specifies that "it SHOULD NOT be enabled by default in order to remain backward-compatible with the unmodified protocol" (see Section 3 of [RFC5082]), this document maintains the backward compatibility by including a dynamic GTSM negotiation for LDP to suggest the use of GTSM (without relying on LDP Capabilities [RFCxxxx]). This means that GTSM will be used as specified in this document provided both peers on an LDP session can detect each others' support for GTSM procedures and agree to use it. That is, the desire to use GTSM (i.e., its negotiation mechanics) is enabled by default. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Gray [mailto:eric.gray@ericsson.com] > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:18 PM > To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06.txt > > > 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://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-ldp-gtsm-06.txt > Reviewer: Eric Gray > Review Date: 25-May-2012 > Intended Status: Standard > > Summary: > > No major issues found. This document is essentially ready for publication. > > Comments: > > This document is mostly clearly written and easily understood. > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > ============ > > Because this draft defines only a new bit assignment as an update to RFC > 5036, it would have been cleaner to have only included the flags field as > shown here: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |T|R|G| Reserved | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > To maintain readability, the draft should still say where this field is (that it is > part of the Common Hello Parameter TLV). > > In addition, since the definitions of T and R are exactly as given in RFC 5036, > the text that currently repeats the definitions for T and R could better have > been written as: > > "T and R > As specified in [RFC5036]." > > This way of representing the changes makes it clearer what the actual > changes are. However, this is a very minor issue. > ___________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > > I am curious why the text under Figure 1 explicitly includes the possibility > that an LSR might implement GTSM capability negotiation but not > implement GTSM. But, again, this is a very minor issue. > ___________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > > NITs: > ==== > > In the abstract, "packets" should be "packet's." > > First sentence, first paragraph under Figure 1 - "meaingful" should be > "meaningful." > > Second sentence, second paragraph under Figure 1 - "but that it does not" > should be "but that does not." > > -- > Eric Gray >
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-in… John E Drake
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-… Eric Gray
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-g… Eric Gray
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-g… Eric Gray
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-g… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-g… Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-g… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-g… Carlos Pignataro