[Teas] AD review draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for recognising the use of the Administratively Down bit for
LI. It's good to see existing mechanisms being adapted to new uses.

I've done my usual AD review to try to catch any issues before IETF
last call. I've found a few issues, the first two of which will need
discussion in the working group, I think. The remaining issues are
relatively minor.

While we wait for you to discuss these issues and possibly issue a new
revision, I will put the document into "Revised I-D Needed" state.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

---

You want to use a bit in the Attribute Flags TLV to indicate Loopback
and propose including that TLV in the HOP Attributes ERO subobject as
defined in draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro.

Please note that that draft is now draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro.

However, draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro defines that the Attributes
Flags TLV is not allowed in the HOP Attributes ERO subobject. I think 
this is for a good reason that many (all?) of bits defined so far have
no meaning if targeted at a specific transit LSR.

---

I think you need to describe what happens if a LB instruction is
received when the LSP is not admin down. Similarly, what happens when
an LSP is moved from admin down to admin up when a LB instruction is in
force. Is there an implication that transit nodes need to inspect the
Admin Status flags?

======

idnits shows

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4783' is defined on line 312, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4872' is defined on line 315, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4974' is defined on line 320, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5852' is defined on line 324, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

---

In 3.2 you talk about reporting the LB in the RRO on the corresponding
Resv. What about the RRO on the Path that is forwarded downstream?

---

I think that Section 5 should refer to the security considerations 
section of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro to pick up any concerns with
the use of that mechanism.