[RTG-DIR] QA review of draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02

Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com> Wed, 01 February 2017 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <manavbhatia@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BD2129482; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:12:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_PASS=-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rb9X9GO7P9Jn; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x233.google.com (mail-ot0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::233]) (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 085B6129421; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x233.google.com with SMTP id f9so294872159otd.1; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:12:25 -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; bh=NroBKL5t1+g97BGq+6PQcounxHoT2wMD+Skf/QA4Pbg=; b=Q3cBWzvnmdxzV42ONan0517zwc/NguMof5jG/G20AkJxLrpS7FBKKQriHisg1rjMCW GlYJTlKKx9gDziMWZFpuA+jHJL8kjmMM6OsfgBeKGnFQ6JnfDzI+cpMr1IoRzTb+1+Om gpqMGx47pV5hFcC7vG1nrEDTcM9hXx5WRLmlR8j8GylSeJrJo3ofXwbCVKG7OLE+ufNQ eBKcUbY591RDSQsUkFtTfjRie5SOJ/nbOtNonpRDFSQz3S/wErQjEoyKEtd/nU/t/bJa BUUF9RUoz6z+qJzi3T1Q20D2iOjuYSuXRBLgY1ub9iXTlW3LRI+oY03qKa94YnZCAWq8 p11Q==
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; bh=NroBKL5t1+g97BGq+6PQcounxHoT2wMD+Skf/QA4Pbg=; b=ffuoEeecsnZqCMamzeEOu0BJ22nDA8rTZU/mIb+IEtk2+YzjGpWPkfxN7aHPxWJ8DI S4qqtJKL31HIbDl2eg2O2U+SnvfJQSobsfFa8pXNFaccxuxWsyduxuzFkh+uHZWMLyoE JYnGdC6hSmAU+zMcNKiLXuj1bryWJIdjBiJ78SJJDksxcJGvQflmn5Oxp9iJVXTcWQbA VvL7bKzdu/D1kTgwyhMFWBAOC2IF1L55FmhG3Tu0Sgw4KNkr21YdcDONusQhlLNPvjzZ xgO7itQk1ZipQKNsP5iTPfCirEkcgXA59Sw5LmiSRJyu6rIc2JIQwg952YgxWmATDmDB 0mRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLBzUpYHw81xLCzNRMauiz19rhoIA+WGKkn0Xy/r2Z+7HZzMSWzBjE7SYK3dJXe+6tBu0UjM2dwT0EBbQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 52mr2203995otg.222.1485969145011; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:12:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:12:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 22:42:24 +0530
Message-ID: <CAG1kdogsM7G2FmoUA+K7kKh0BBX_iaYGBydVB+61s013c1bfwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cffd009277105477b275a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/xQNUfEwR7CcpjKmiHj7Uve3Abbs>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] QA review of draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:12:28 -0000

Dear Authors,

I have been asked to do Routing Area Directorate QA review
of draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02


Its an informational draft that discusses “desired capabilities for MPLS
flow identification”. I am not sure what this means — is this alluding to
the capabilities on the routers, or some protocol? I think the authors
meant to discuss the aspects that must be considered when developing a
solution for MPLS flow identification. However, it takes quite a bit of
reading to get there.

I found the document quite hard to parse initially. After a couple of
passes, it became somewhat better and I could understand the points that
the authors were trying to make. I have no concerns on the technical

Major Comments:

Please work on the readability aspects of the draft.

Minor Comments:

1. Section  3 - I would resist the urge to make a sweeping statement that
packets dont get dropped in “modern networks” unless the network is
oversubscribed. I work for a large vendor and I see packets dropping all
the time.

2. Section 3 - What is a counter error?

3. Section 3 - “Thus where accuracy better than the data link loss
performance of a modern optical network is required, it may be economically
advantageous ..”. I had a very hard time trying to parse this.

4. Section 4 - “Also, for injected test packets, these may not be co-routed
with the data traffic due to ECMP”. Also include LAG and MC-LAG.
Additionally the data path for the test traffic could be different from the
regular IP traffic.

5. Section 5 - “Such fine grained resolution may be possible by deep packet
inspection, .. “. How can you do deep packet inspection at the LSR. How
will you know the label stack size in the packet? I am not sure if the LSR
needs to deep inspect these packets? But based on text in Sec 8, LSRs
appear to be processing these packets.

Cheers, Manav