IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05

"Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com> Tue, 03 May 2016 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.xian@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C0112D0B0 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TubpqbdJcLz8 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32BCE12B015 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CJA07996; Tue, 03 May 2016 03:13:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.34) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 3 May 2016 04:13:23 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.211]) by SZXEMA417-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 3 May 2016 11:13:19 +0800
From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05
Thread-Index: AQHRoY5hFf7aW4q4tU+wo+eHX2JTR5+mesmQ
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 03:13:18 +0000
Message-ID: <C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B7DEA6AAC@SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <CA+YzgTsv1mZZhmeb_nDBZVQcopjb6AtizCy6McgNQwgYB42xhQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTsv1mZZhmeb_nDBZVQcopjb6AtizCy6McgNQwgYB42xhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B7DEA6AACSZXEMA512MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.57281754.00EE, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.8.211, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 14bd6ad2e43c9b2e145dbaf265c16119
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CKGj98io5ayWtj9q11M4ccrECUI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 03:13:29 -0000

Hi, all,

I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.

I have one suggestion on the encoding section: could we add the bit number for each field explanation? It may be a bit redundant, but I find it usually clearer if we have such information in the text.

Others are just some nits:
1： s/Note that specification of the the use of the collected SRLGs is outside the scope of this document./Note that specification of the use of the collected SRLGs is outside the scope of this document.
2：s/SRLG information is for each hop is added to the Path RRO during Path message processing./SRLG information is added by each hop to the Path RRO during Path message processing.(?)
3: consider relocating the following sentence to the very beginning of this section(5.1), maybe?
A node SHOULD NOT add SRLG information without an explicit request for it being made by the ingress node in the Path message.
4: The points listed in Section 6.1 started with “o” are squeezed together in one paragraph; please rectify.

Regards,
Xian

From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: 2016年4月29日 4:42
To: teas@ietf.org
Subject: [Teas] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05

All,
This starts a two week working group last call on
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05.

The working group last call ends on Thursday, May 12th. Please
send your comments to the TEAS mailing list.

As is always the case, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this
document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
This is useful and important, even from authors.
Note, IPR has been disclosed on this draft.

Thanks,
Pavan (and Lou)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email