Re: [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-07.txt

"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <> Wed, 07 December 2016 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B611294F5; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:10:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.418
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ov2SqsUSDFNo; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:10:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BCE012947F; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:10:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4406; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1481127025; x=1482336625; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=xnHI7p+LTrJBGtWfmSVSodKTNtV3mI5hntWR1ZZWUsk=; b=PHwJkJZP40zvh6V7iTHZOek/tjlSMxCxM7RP3yieojwrSn9YcRoX1Y+Q EmQbhEJMfWvuT3tZ3vA+IO+co2PRjWffaSWJmXrEbezn3uyO04vtqra+S R2EYVefrbgVTxioJURq/UB4jrt4r+ohO21zwy0xmzdQF0xSW03V15ML3+ Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D/AQDAM0hY/5pdJa1eGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgzkBAQEBAR9agQYHAY1AlxGUfoIHKYV5AhqBXD8UAQIBAQEBAQEBYii?= =?us-ascii?q?EaQYjEUUQAgEIFAYCJgICAjAVEAIEAQ0FG4hUDqhdgimLNQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBARyBC4UzgX0IglaESBeCbS2CMAWaZgGGS4pMgXNQhC2JT4dhhiK?= =?us-ascii?q?EDQEfN4EZMQEBgykcgV1yAYg4AYEMAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,310,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="184202082"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Dec 2016 16:10:24 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uB7GAOUP011269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:10:24 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:10:23 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:10:23 -0600
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSRc3r9+xr+rgbikyiI9lVcuFrpKD8zf8A
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:10:23 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.15.1.160411
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-07.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 16:10:28 -0000

Thank you Joel for the thorough review of the document.

We will go through the comments and update the document as suggested.


Rakesh (for authors and contributors)

On 2016-11-23, 4:10 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <> wrote:

>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 
>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-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-07.txt
>Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>Review Date: 23-November-2016
>IETF LC End Date: N/A
>Intended Status: Standards Track
>Summary: I have some moderate concerns about this document that I think 
>should be resolved before publication is approved.
>     The use of SHOULD and MAY in section 4.1 seems to lead to a device 
>which ostensibly supports this document, but does the wrong things.
>     First, with regard to the SHOULDs, in the absence of any indication 
>as to why it would not do this, it appears that the SHOULD is really 
>"MUST if the device supports this document" which is what MUST in a 
>document actually means.
>     Section 4.2 first bullet says that a mid-point LSR "SHOULD" check 
>for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP Tree.  But if it doesn't, it is not 
>supporting this document.  As written, it could decide to ignore the 
>message, even though it claims to support this RFC.
>     Looking at the handling when a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is 
>found, according to the document, the LSR MAY send the PathErr response. 
>  My assumption is that if it does not send the PathErr, it MUST 
>propagate the request.  If it does not do either one, the protocol does 
>not function.  It seems likely that if this is really intended to be 
>optional (MAY), the document would be improved my giving implementors 
>some hint as to when it is desirable or undesirable to send the message.
>     Then in the third bullet, it is only a SHOULD to pass on the 
>request.  Thus, a device which supports this mechanism, but chooses not 
>to pass on the request, is compliant to this document while preventing 
>other devices from properly supporting the mechanism.
>     The abstract is much too long.  Much of the content of the abstract 
>belongs in the introduction.  Even teh second paragraph has too much 
>detail for an abstract.
>     In the last paragraph of the introduction, it says that this 
>document "proposes" solutions.  Given we are now in the position of 
>evaluating publication as a Proposed Standard, I would say that this 
>document "defines" solutions.