[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 [127.0.0.1]) 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-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (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 10.157.10.55 with SMTP id 52mr2203995otg.222.1485969145011; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:12:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.56.109 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:12:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 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 Summary: 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 content. 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
- [RTG-DIR] QA review of draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident… Manav Bhatia
- Re: [RTG-DIR] QA review of draft-ietf-mpls-flow-i… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [RTG-DIR] QA review of draft-ietf-mpls-flow-i… Manav Bhatia